# Been with Canon for 12 years - wait or jump ship?



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

I realize threads like this can devolve quickly but looking for advice from other Canon users.

Background: Been shooting a dSLR since Canon 350D that I bought 12 years ago. Moved to the 50D (had tried out Nikon at that point but muscle memory was all backwards). Now on 5DmkIII that I bought when it came out. Lenses: 17-40/4, 24-105/4, 70-200/4, 35/2 IS (edit: corrected), 100/2
Shoot landscapes/seascapes and sell prints. Self published book of images in its second printing. Haven't spent a dime since the MkIII so have enough saved to pay for new camera/lenses.
Also shoot 10 and 12 year old kids playing sports - indoor basketball, dance as well as lacrosse, soccer

With the Sony a7Riii specs now official, I have to admit to being very intrigued - especially with their 24-105 which is my workhorse lens.

Things I wish I had with my Canon are a bigger sensor with more DR (I print 20x30+ not infrequently and have to enlarge in software before sending to the lab). I briefly considered the 5DS R but FPS was way too low for kids sports. My 5D mk III is barely able to catch decisive moments in faster sports.

Other benefits (on paper) of the Sony - eye focus (awesome if it works reliably), better AF than the mkIII, lighter weight (1 lb less with the 24-105 respectively). 

I love my Canon 35/2 IS (edit: corrected) and have favored a lighter kit as you can see above and am happy with the lenses overall. 

The Sony 12-24 lens and the 100-400 get impressive reviews and, with the new 24-105, would greatly increase my range.

I frankly don't see much development along these lines in the Canon and, as noted above, have been with them for over a decade. I would not pre-order a Sony and will absolutely wait for real world reviews

Really appreciate your thoughts on this. Hope this is an appropriate thread to start.

E

Sony specs if haven't seen them:
Innovative Full-frame Mirrorless Model Offers 42.4 MP High-Resolution, 10 fps Continuous Shooting, Fast and Precise AF Performance in a Compact Body

35mm Full-Frame 42.4 MP Back-Illuminated Exmor R™ CMOS Image Sensor with Evolved Image Processing
Continuous Shooting at up to 10 fps with either Silent Shooting or Mechanical Shutter and full Auto Focus/Auto Exposure tracking
399 phase-detection AF points covering 68% of image area, 425 contrast AF points and approximately 2 times more effective Eye AF
5-axis optical in-body image stabilization with a 5.5 step shutter speed advantage
High Resolution 4K Movie Shooting with full pixel readout and no pixel binning
Completely redesigned for professionals, including upgraded Auto Focus, Dual SD Card Slots, Extended Battery Life, SuperSpeed USB (USB 3.1 Gen 1) USB Type-C™ Terminal and more
Compact, Lightweight body at only 23 oz


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 25, 2017)

Short answer seeing your lens lineup: stay with Canon.

If you really feel tempted by the Sony specs go get one rented for a few days, try to get used to the UI and ergonomics and if it fits well, then spend the money on Sony.

Pray that you'll never get in need to contact their service


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 25, 2017)

Here's the problem with camera bodies..... none of them are perfect. Each seems to have some advantage of the others ( and this is not just Canon, it is across all manufacturers) and there is always the promise of something a bit better if you switch to "X".... And yes, "X" does some things better, but camera "Y" does other things better, and camera "Z": does a different set of things better.

That gives no definitive answer and results in a lot of fanboys LOUDLY attacking everyone else's decision without considering that those decisions were made with a different set of criteria.

If I were to give any advice to someone like you with a semi-current camera and a reasonable set of lenses, it would be to stick with whatever system that you have. Upgrading with each new body is expensive and the returns are minimal, it is usually best to skip models. If you feel that you must upgrade, consider investing in lenses.... they will make far more difference than upgrading bodies....


----------



## traveller (Oct 25, 2017)

How much money have you got? How much do you make from your prints & books? How many more sales would a high resolution camera enable you to make? 

Weigh this up against your transition costs: go to KEH/MPB and see how much they sell your bodies/lenses for used, assume you would get a maximum of 75% of this price on a trade-in deal. Add up your liquidated asset value and take this away from the price of whatever kit you want as a replacement. 

I won't lie and tell you that I've never done this exercise myself, it's just that every time I do it seems that I come out with a huge dent in my wallet or lens collection. So far I have stuck, you may decide differently.


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> Short answer seeing your lens lineup: stay with Canon.
> 
> If you really feel tempted by the Sony specs go get one rented for a few days, try to get used to the UI and ergonomics and if it fits well, then spend the money on Sony.
> 
> Pray that you'll never get in need to contact their service



Those are my two concerns

UI/ergonomics - gave up on the Nikon in 5 minutes when I couldn't figure out how to focus and the guy at Ritz couldn't either. That and the fact that all functions are 180 degree different (knob rotations, lens changes). Very curious if anyone here has played with the a7R series to compare.

Service - I'm a member of CPS but haven't actually needed to use any service in at least 1 and possibly 2 years now. The 5DmkIII feels pretty much bulletproof. I'm at nearly 150,000 actuations and haven't had the lockups or other issues that I've read about with the Sonys.


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Here's the problem with camera bodies..... none of them are perfect. Each seems to have some advantage of the others ( and this is not just Canon, it is across all manufacturers) and there is always the promise of something a bit better if you switch to "X".... And yes, "X" does some things better, but camera "Y" does other things better, and camera "Z": does a different set of things better.
> 
> That gives no definitive answer and results in a lot of fanboys LOUDLY attacking everyone else's decision without considering that those decisions were made with a different set of criteria.
> 
> If I were to give any advice to someone like you with a semi-current camera and a reasonable set of lenses, it would be to stick with whatever system that you have. Upgrading with each new body is expensive and the returns are minimal, it is usually best to skip models. If you feel that you must upgrade, consider investing in lenses.... they will make far more difference than upgrading bodies....



Completely agree with you Don - none are perfect. And I've only bought a new camera when I hit the limitation of my current one. That happened with the 50D when I pushed it beyond its abilities and found myself limited by banding, noise, etc.

I have done well with the 5D so far and did not go for the 5DmkIV (not a big enough change for me), 5DS R (nice resolution bump but at cost of FPS), or a7R II (same concern with nice resolution but poor FPS). I refuse to switch to Nikon simply due to the backwards nature of their knobs, etc and don't think I could adapt. 

The a7R III offers the resolution bump of the 5DS R with better FPS and some other (potential) benefits like improved AF, eye AF, nicer screen, etc. 

Again, very curious if others have ventured to that camera lineup (a7 series) and found significant differences from the Canon that were a deal breaker.


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

traveller said:


> How much money have you got? How much do you make from your prints & books? How many more sales would a high resolution camera enable you to make?
> 
> Weigh this up against your transition costs: go to KEH/MPB and see how much they sell your bodies/lenses for used, assume you would get a maximum of 75% of this price on a trade-in deal. Add up your liquidated asset value and take this away from the price of whatever kit you want as a replacement.
> 
> I won't lie and tell you that I've never done this exercise myself, it's just that every time I do it seems that I come out with a huge dent in my wallet or lens collection. So far I have stuck, you may decide differently.



I have 30k in profit put aside from photography print/calendar/book sales. That money is purely for photography expenses (and the coming iPhone X 8) ). I'm lucky in that I do not rely on photography income and can use it to fund itself. 

I'm sure I'll take a hit on the lenses but most of mine can probably be sold for at least 50-60% of original value.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2017)

eoren1 said:


> Again, very curious if others have ventured to that camera lineup (a7 series) and found significant differences from the Canon that were a deal breaker.



Didn't buy, but did try. For me, the ergonomics were the deal breaker – I tend to use larger lenses (24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8), and they don't play well with a small body like the a7 series.


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> eoren1 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, very curious if others have ventured to that camera lineup (a7 series) and found significant differences from the Canon that were a deal breaker.
> ...



Was it backwards like Nikon in terms of knobs/lens changes? Was it non-intuitive to focus and use the camera?
I tend to use f/4 lenses so wonder if that would differ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2017)

eoren1 said:


> Was it backwards like Nikon in terms of knobs/lens changes? Was it non-intuitive to focus and use the camera?
> I tend to use f/4 lenses so wonder if that would differ.



Sony's UI is very kludgy. But I'm sure with time and use, one would become accustomed to it. Same goes for button placements – different, but one would get used to it. What I would not get used to is the smaller size, resulting in closer button placement that gets uncomfortable in use. So, while over time I'd learn to use the buttons by feel (as I do with Canon, currently), time won't make the camera bigger or my hands smaller, and therefore the discomfort during use would remain.


----------



## Pookie (Oct 25, 2017)

One of the aspects of these types of questions has always intrigued me... why you need to wait or jump?

Reading your bio on your site I would think you could afford buying and trying out any gear you would like. Buy a second camera, any maker you'd like... use it and then decide which you prefer and keep or sell. If this is a passion for you and you enjoy taking photos... why limit yourself to one camera maker. 

Speaking as a business owner (I own my portrait studio) and an avid photographer I've come to appreciate having multiple cameras and makers. I've also purchased, used and then decided to sell many systems. I own multiple Canons (for both business and pleasure), Pentax MF, Fujifilm recent offerings (MF, X100S, Xpro-2), Mamiya film, multiple Leicas (M10, 240, M6, M5, M3), and countless other makers and bodies. Each has something to offer and some are kept & used... some are sold.

I consider it renting. I just sold the Fuji GFX 50S, used it for about 6 months and hated it so I sold it. Up to the point of deciding, the plan was to either keep the GFX50S or Pentax 645Z. I sold the GFX for about 90% the original cost and consider this to be one of the cheapest 6 month rentals you could ask for. I'm not saying buy a 100 different camera and take a financial bath. I'm saying if this is really an option you would like to consider, buy a Sony... use it for a few months and then consider which system to keep and either sell one or keep both. Not a huge gamble if you make the decision while there is some value in either system you won't lose much. Especially with Canon gear... I can tell you I've sold many Canon products over the last 20 years and often for the same price or more than I purchased for.


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

Pookie said:


> One of the aspects of these types of questions has always intrigued me... why you need to wait or jump?
> 
> Reading your bio on your site I would think you could afford buying and trying out any gear you would like. Buy a second camera, any maker you'd like... use it and then decide which you prefer and keep or sell. If this is a passion for you and you enjoy taking photos... why limit yourself to one camera maker.
> 
> ...



Good points Pookie and agree about these cameras/lenses tending to hold value. I treat my lenses well and forget that they hold a ridiculous amount of value.

I was never one to use multiple cameras let alone multiple systems. I went out once with my 50D and 5D to run a time-lapse with the former and since then have left the 50D in a drawer. I see your point in getting the a7R iii and 24-105 for a real world experience and selling it at a loss of a few hundred dollars if it doesn't work out.

Guess I was looking more for thoughts on whether there were clear deal breakers with the Sony a7 system. If so, really not worth the time/effort and minimal cost of buying/selling. Also if there was a huge adjustment from Canon to Sony.

As for the 'wait' part of it, I definitely feel like I'm hitting the limits of the 5D mk III but neither the mk IV or 5DS R fit as steps up from my mk III. Wondering if/when we'll see a big leap in Canon's dSLR lineup but realize that is pure conjecture/rumor.

Thanks everyone.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 25, 2017)

eoren1, You mentioned a Canon 35/1.4 IS lens in your collection. I'm thinking that's a typo. Did you mean to type II instead of IS?


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

drmikeinpdx said:


> eoren1, You mentioned a Canon 35/1.4 IS lens in your collection. I'm thinking that's a typo. Did you mean to type II instead of IS?



I meant the 35/2 IS...sorry!

Really a great lens


----------



## Pookie (Oct 25, 2017)

eoren1 said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > One of the aspects of these types of questions has always intrigued me... why you need to wait or jump?
> ...



Just food for thought...

Often the deal breakers for me or anyone else on this site are not concerns for someone else... and really only you can tell that with some amount of real world use. People often suggest renting. I've just found it to be an exorbitant cost for a few days when compared to a purchase and re-sell down the road. 

Best of luck...


----------



## jeanluc (Oct 25, 2017)

Also being intrigued with the A7R hype, I have spent a fair bit of time at my local Best Buy playing with one.

After about half an hour of menu-scrolling, and certainly no manual-reading,I was able to get it set up like my Canon bodies for landscape shooting...back button AF, bracketing etc. You can definitely set it up very much the same for that.

The nuances of the AF modes I did not worry about, since I don't use these as my camera is nearly always on a tripod and nothing moves. So no comment there.

For me the Canon ergonomics are a lot better, the menus are WAY easier to intuitively navigate and frankly with my size 8 hands, the slightly smaller body is no advantage at all. In fact, with 2.8 lenses the A7 just doesn't balance well for me. 

So I do have some techno-envy, but when I'm shooting in the rain and my hands are muddy from climbing down into some wet ravine and the light is changing fast, I will stick with what I know and works very well all the time.

When Canon does go FF mirrorless, I really hope they do not change much including the body size. After making pro-level bodies for a long time, the design is mature and works very well for many well-proven reasons.

I also feel with the 5D4 sensor there is no meaningful gap in IQ any more, (although with the 5d3 there sure is). The upcoming 5DSR2 will almost certainly be even better with higher resolution if that is an issue for you.

Since the IQ results are what matters, I am staying put.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 25, 2017)

I'm waiting for Canon to respond. I do wedding photography on the side in addition to 6 figure job so it isn't all about money, but glass, workflow, ergonomic (especially for 12-16 hrs weddings), compatibility with strobe/lighting gears. I'm willing to take a hit if it's significantly improve my image quality. We have to see the real life review. 

I also play with A7RII and it feel like a toy. I would have to buy a grip to make it comfortable for long wedding. The menu is clunky but I can get use to that. I hope adapted lens will be much improve with A7RIII.

If Canon doesn't respond with FF mirrorless and it's lackluster, the Sony A7RIII/A7III will be much cheaper by the time Canon responded.


----------



## ethanz (Oct 25, 2017)

Why not try out the 1DX2? I think it would do all you want, except for the resolution bump.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 25, 2017)

Yeah, it's time to jump ship.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2017)

Sony and Canon have two basically different philosophy's, Sony miniaturizes the products, and this makes them very expensive to repair. By the time the warranty is up, it can be smarter to toss a broken one than pay big bucks and wait months for repair. Sony invented Throw-Away products. They were successful and they have stayed with it. Its particularly painful for their lenses, which Canon users expect to last for 20 and more years. When a Sony lens breaks, it tends to be difficult to repair, and its a long wait. If you are running a business, you just toss it and buy another. If you are not wealthy, it can be painful.

Canon gives a very high priority to the manufacturing and repair costs of a product, and does not put a feature in a product that their target market does not need. This makes the products less cutting edge, less expensive to manufacture and less expensive to repair, so the cost of ownership is lower.

Each philosophy works for a different group of buyers, there is no right or wrong, its a individual choice. Buyers in general don't know or care about all this, they go to Best Buy, Costco, Walmart, Amazon, etc and buy a brand they trust for the lowest possible price.

Some countries have residents who tend to value photography more than others. Japan is often considered to be in that category. Thus, buyers of cameras in Japan are believed to be paying more attention to the workings and ergonomics of what they buy, and are looked to as a bellwether for which is best, the caveat being that the fit into a person's hand, and overall size may have different values by country or region.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> Short answer seeing your lens lineup: stay with Canon.
> 
> If you really feel tempted by the Sony specs go get one rented for a few days, try to get used to the UI and ergonomics and if it fits well, then spend the money on Sony.
> 
> Pray that you'll never get in need to contact their service



+1. Not renting before migrating to an entirely different camera platform is like moving to another country without having spent a day there. 

Say it 10 times: _ try before you buy_.

Hand fit / hand comfort with big lenses attached alone may be a dealbreaker for you. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2017)

eoren1 said:


> I love my Canon 35/1.4 IS and have favored a lighter kit as you can see above and am happy with the lenses overall.



Either you have a time machine to use a lens that does not exist, or that's a typo. 

If it's the former, please go back to the future and get me a 50 f/nooneknows IS USM, thanks. 

- A


----------



## ethanz (Oct 25, 2017)

@ahsanford



eoren1 said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > eoren1, You mentioned a Canon 35/1.4 IS lens in your collection. I'm thinking that's a typo. Did you mean to type II instead of IS?
> ...


----------



## greger (Oct 25, 2017)

I think you are going to regret jumping ship to Sony. If you put your Canon gear in a box in the back of your closet, you can pull it out and use it if and when Sony fails to satisfy your needs. You would only lose money on the Sony gear and not the Canon gear too. Obviously the 5 D IV didn’t fit your needs. As someone else suggested maybe 1D X ll is your next Camera. You should use the gear you have and see what Canon releases in 2018 or when your 5D lll finally packs it in.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 25, 2017)

As others have mentioned, if you can rent one it will help you decide. I tried the Sony A7 and A7 II a couple years ago with the intent of selling my 6D. With very limited experience with these cameras before I returned them, I found:

Very poor ergonomics. Very uncomfortable to hold and the opposite direction for focus and zoom on their lenses was a real negative.

While obviously personal taste. Canon's color is better than Sony's.

The difference in DR was not noticeable in any daytime shots I took. Plus, the Canon tonal curves were much more to my liking. Again, personal taste.

I couldn't afford any of the higher end lenses and the kit lenses (while not cheap) were very poor. It might have been the result of the small flange distance which made image quality poor anywhere away from the center of the image. 

In the end, I returned both Sony cameras. There was not one thing that I about them that I liked more than Canon.

Of course, that was a different model, but the ergonomics, flange distance, lenses, etc are all the same.


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

dak723 said:


> As others have mentioned, if you can rent one it will help you decide. I tried the Sony A7 and A7 II a couple years ago with the intent of selling my 6D. With very limited experience with these cameras before I returned them, I found:
> 
> Very poor ergonomics. Very uncomfortable to hold and the opposite direction for focus and zoom on their lenses was a real negative.
> 
> ...



Thanks - interesting to hear about zoom and focus being 'backwards'.

Didn't even think of Best Buy as mentioned above and have one near my work so will visit tomorrow or Friday and see how it the a7Rii feels in-hand.


----------



## kingrobertii (Oct 25, 2017)

I use Sony cameras a lot for work and I will say the menu system is enough of a reason for most people to not switch over because it is absolutely miserable. Also the AF system on their cameras for fast action sports is not accurate in the least from my experience. Like others have said, rent and try it. But don't get caught up on the specs on paper. If you need more resolution, wait a year for the new 5DsR and pick up that or the original model.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2017)

kingrobertii said:


> I use Sony cameras a lot for work and I will say the menu system is enough of a reason for most people to not switch over because it is absolutely miserable. Also the AF system on their cameras for fast action sports is not accurate in the least from my experience. Like others have said, rent and try it. But don't get caught up on the specs on paper. If you need more resolution, wait a year for the new 5DsR and pick up that or the original model.



Also, if horsepower specs (MP, FPS, 4K) and sensor quality are indeed the primary reason you'd want to switch (i.e. more than being smaller, ditching the mirror, adapting the lenses, etc.) and you're prepared to eat the pain/cost/time to do that, _I'd get a D850 ten times out of ten over an A7/A9:_

Equivalent detail, throughput and (likely) sensor quality
FX >> FE for lenses (in options, cost, not being saddled with Sony's focus by wire GM nonsense, etc.)
Still has an OVF
Nikon photography ergonomics/controls DNA >> Sony photography ergonomics/controls DNA

Just saying. I wouldn't leave Canon for another mount, but if I did, the D850 would be my first choice.

- A


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 25, 2017)

Just like to chime in here. I migrated to an A7R2/A9 combination this year coming from a Panasonic GH/MFT ecosystem since 2013. I ended up also migrating all of my MFT lenses to FE as well in the process to take advantage of the specific AF features like 20fps, Eye-AF, etc. 

I'm not sure many people here have used an A9, and they might be basing their comparisons based on the A7R2 era. But I've shot a few weddings on this camera and the AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive with absolutely no blackout. You can't fully grasp that until you've either rented or owned it and shot with one on the job.

The battery system and power management are significantly better than the A7R2. I've shot 2x4K weddings with 2 batteries total over 11 hours with power remaining and I'm sure if I was doing stills only 1 battery could last an entire day. The A7R2 needed 6 battery swaps. The A9 also has a custom menu option and also a custom recall which I absolutely enjoyed using on Canon bodies previously. It also has separate drive and af dials, a touchscreen for af and a joystick controller. It also does dual 4K backup recordings across both memory cards. The A7R3 will gain a lot of these improvements for sure.

Some competitor's do eventually catch up, so it's always great to keep an open mind and consider your alternatives.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> ...the AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive with absolutely no blackout. You can't fully grasp that...



So you're saying the a9 has absolutely no shutter lag? Even though Imaging Resource measured it at over 200 ms? Or are you saying that moving subjects don't move over the course of 2/10 of a second? You're right, I can't fully grasp that.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > ...the AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive with absolutely no blackout. You can't fully grasp that...
> ...



+1.

On this front: OVF/SLR 1, EVF/Mirrorless 0.

Tapping into a live sensor read and running a chain of shots without blackout is potentially a great upside, but missing decisive moments is a big takeaway.

- A


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> Just like to chime in here. I migrated to an A7R2/A9 combination this year coming from a Panasonic GH/MFT ecosystem since 2013. I ended up also migrating all of my MFT lenses to FE as well in the process to take advantage of the specific AF features like 20fps, Eye-AF, etc.
> 
> I'm not sure many people here have used an A9, and they might be basing their comparisons based on the A7R2 era. But I've shot a few weddings on this camera and the AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive with absolutely no blackout. You can't fully grasp that until you've either rented or owned it and shot with one on the job.
> 
> ...



Thanks Jay - great info. 

I make money off landscapes where the increased megapixels would be nice, DR boost appreciated and the pixel shift potentially helpful. 

However, I enjoy shooting my kids at least as much and eye AF, faster fps to catch action, no blackout should definitely increase keepers/favorites.

Someone mentioned Canon color and I had heard that before - that Canon produces much nicer skin tones. I use LR to process and wonder if you have seen a difference with the Sony A9 in shooting weddings.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 25, 2017)

There really isn't that much difference in something shot with a 30Mpixel or a 40Mpixel camera.... at least if you stick with the 35mm format....

If you really want a LOT of resolution for landscape pictures, have you considered medium format? Think 16 bit colour depth (not 14 like Conon/Nikon/Sony) and real 15 bit DR...... and up to 100Mpixels.....


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 25, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> There really isn't that much difference in something shot with a 30Mpixel or a 40Mpixel camera.... at least if you stick with the 35mm format....
> 
> If you really want a LOT of resolution for landscape pictures, have you considered medium format? Think 16 bit colour depth (not 14 like Conon/Nikon/Sony) and real 15 bit DR...... and up to 100Mpixels.....



The 5DmkIII is 22 MP. Resolution is 5760 wide so at 300ppi/dpi, max native print is 19" on long end. I've definitely printed bigger (40x60) with use of software programs such as Perfect Resize. The Sony at 42MP would print 26" long at 300 dpi/ppi. Not a huge difference but I would likely end up being able to print 95-99% of my stuff shot with that camera without having to resize and worry about added artifacts.

As for MF, it would be wonderful but also useless for shooting kids and I don't want to run two systems.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2017)

eoren1 said:


> As for MF, it would be wonderful but also useless for shooting kids



You beat me to it. Unless you want to stop down and range focus, shooting kids in unscripted situations takes a proper AF system. MF can crush certain types of photography, but I'd imagine this isn't one of them unless you have a ton of patience and don't mind missing a lot of great moments.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 25, 2017)

eoren1 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > There really isn't that much difference in something shot with a 30Mpixel or a 40Mpixel camera.... at least if you stick with the 35mm format....
> ...



Have you tried flash photography on the kids? It gets you more light to work with.....


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Have you tried flash photography on the kids? It gets you more light to work with.....



For dedicated portraits, sure, but for just hanging out, travel, candids and so on, the flash overshadows the moment, makes it about me, etc. and I almost never use it.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Have you tried flash photography on the kids? It gets you more light to work with.....
> ...


I find that I can get it to work well indoors where I can bounce off walls or ceilings, but outdoors (at least for me) it makes everything look harsh and staged..... I tried it at the bird feeders, and my only accomplishment there was that I now know how to scare birds away from the feeders


----------



## Jopa (Oct 26, 2017)

There is no point to jump ship unless you're changing format. For example going full MF. Your lenses would render perfectly fine image to any FF sensor. A good thing about Sony is you can have it as a "digital back" for your Canon lenses if you aren't satisfied with DR or some other random things. 5dsr2 is coming next year anyway...


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > ...the AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive with absolutely no blackout. You can't fully grasp that...
> ...



I wasn't talking about the shutter lag, I was talking about the viewfinder blackout. There is none on the A9. On any OVF DSLR, there is the constant movement of the mirror. 60ms on the 1DX series and 125ms on the 5D series.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



Remember though, that number is the aggregate time for the mirror to both open and close.... and the pattern is not symmetrical as it takes the mirror less time to flip out of the way than it does to return. This would make the delay caused by the mirror to be 30ms (or less) on the 1DX. 

So you push the shutter, the camera does AF and metering (non-deterministic amount of delay), then the shutter starts moving and 30ms (or slightly less) later the exposure starts. At the end of the exposure, the mirror starts to return and it takes 30ms (or slightly more) for the mirror to return. However, the camera is not sitting there waiting and doing nothing while the mirror returns, it is reading the sensor, processing the image, and storing it to memory and then transferring the image to card(s)..... which probably consumes most (or more) of that 30ms mirror return time.

And the A9? It still takes time to read the sensor, and it also takes time to process the images afterwards... Mirrorless may not offer as much speed advantage as one first thinks....

That said, I have a mirrorless P/S camera that will crank out 100FPS, but at a very reduced resolution. I think that it is safe to say that a sensor can be read in 10ms or under, but the real bottleneck seems to be processing data and storing it....

Things are never simple in a complex system.


----------



## timmy_650 (Oct 26, 2017)

If you live closer to a big city you might be able to find a day where they are demoing camera. When I lived in Sacramento the local camera store got the major camera brands to demo their gear for free at the zoo. I love playing with new gear. 
I used the A7rII and liked it. (I normal shoot a Canon 6D) It was nice with the smaller lenses but if you put an F/2.8, I didn't care for it. It was nice to go from a 5Dm4 with a 100-400mkII to an A7rII with a 70-200 F4 weight wise. There was things the camera did which annoyed me but was probably just settings like every picture I took it would show it to me in the view finder, which was nice when nothing was moving but really annoying when you were tracking something. 
Before I used Sony I really wanted one but after, I didn't care for the system. If I didn't have any money into a system. I might choose sony but to switch over, it isn't worth it to me. 
The thing I learned that day is all the new camera out there are great and I was kinda shocked how hard it was to tell files apart when just scrolling though them. That was comparing micro 4/3 systems, APS-C, full frame from 20mp to 50mp.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



Evidently you don't know what you were talking about. You stated, "...the AF is exceptionally fast...because it doesn't have to be predictive," and attributed that to the lack of VF blackout. But the a9 doesn't capture an image at a zero delay from achieving focus. If it's not using predictive AF, moving subjects will be frequently out of focus. So, which is it – does the a9 use predictive AF, or does it miss shots of moving subjects?

Incidentally, the a9 takes a minimum of 20 ms from shutter press to image capture, with electronic first shutter and no focusing. The 1D X takes a mimimum of 36 ms to do that, because of the mirror movement. But per Imaging Resource testing, from center point AF to image capture is 216 ms on the a9, whereas through the VF on the 5DIV it's 165 ms, and a mere 85 ms on the 1D X II. So, your claim of 'exceptionally fast AF' on the a9 is dead wrong by comparison to the Canon 5- and 1-series AF. 

It's great when people are enthused about something, but it's just sad when their enthusiasm blinds them to factual reality.


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 26, 2017)

Went to Best Buy during lunch and had 10 minutes to play with display a7Rii

It is small in hand which can be a plus (mated to a small prime) and minus (with a 100-400)
Pretty intuitive except for figuring out how to focus - couldn’t figure out how to get focus points to show or selected. The a7rIII will have a joystick which I use on the 5DmkIII and love
Putting on lens was the same - zoom was backwards

Might be worth a buy after early reviews are posted and reveal any issues


----------



## bholliman (Oct 26, 2017)

eoren1 said:


> Shoot landscapes/seascapes and sell prints.
> Also shoot 10 and 12 year old kids playing sports - indoor basketball, dance as well as lacrosse, soccer
> 
> Things I wish I had with my Canon are a bigger sensor with more DR (I print 20x30+ not infrequently and have to enlarge in software before sending to the lab). I briefly considered the 5DS R but FPS was way too low for kids sports. My 5D mk III is barely able to catch decisive moments in faster sports.



Just curious why you seem to have ruled out the 5D MkIV? Its certainly a very capable action camera with excellent AF for kids sports. Based on the reviews of the A9 and A7rII, it doesn't appear Sony has caught up with Canon and Nikon DSLR's in the AF area yet, regardless of published specs. Getting close, but still behind as far as I can see.

Sony has a 42mp sensor vs. 30 for the MkIV, but that's really not a huge difference in your final print size. The MkIV's dynamic range is very close to the the Sony A7rII, so I assume it will be very close to the III as well.



eoren1 said:


> With the Sony a7Riii specs now official, I have to admit to being very intrigued - especially with their 24-105 which is my workhorse lens.



Canon, Sigma, and Nikon (24-120) haven't succeeded yet in making an optically excellent 24-105/120 yet. Will Sony's be better? Time will tell.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I was expecting that you would try to position the interpretation in another direction, once you realize that yes, in fact all mirror based DSLRS have mirror blackout so that discussion will not yield itself in your favor, but let's look at exactly what you thought I said here:

"Evidently you don't know what you were talking about. You stated, "...the AF is exceptionally fast...because it doesn't have to be predictive," and attributed that to the lack of VF blackout. "


What I was originally said:

the AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive with absolutely no blackout. You can't fully grasp that


What I was trying to convey was:

a) The AF is exceptionally fast
AND
b) There is no blackout

I didn't say "the AF is exceptionally fast because there is no blackout." I purposely avoided that discussion, because mirror blackout doesn't have any impact on AF speed, it is simply objectively faster because the image is un-interrupted during burst shooting. This is also combined with the fact that the camera is able to track at 20fps which none of those other 2 cameras you mentioned can do.

In fact, all I was doing was validating what I read on dpreview from personal experiences using the camera in the field. I'd gladly take your advice as well, but since I haven't seen your review on this camera or any camera for that matter, I'll just have to take your word on it that the A9 is NOT exceptionally fast.

My main message here is that trying new products and technologies with enthusiasm after doing proper due diligence is the way to move forwards. I'm not obligated to stay with one manufacturer strictly due to brand loyalty.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> What I was originally said:
> 
> the AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive with absolutely no blackout. You can't fully grasp that
> 
> ...



Without wanting to put words in Neuro's mouth, his thoughts echoed mine - that you claimed the AF is fast _because it does not need to be predictive_. Blackout or not, it still needs to predict where the subject will be (a) in the fraction of a second between you half-pressing the shutter and then firing the shutter, and (b) in the 1/20 sec between the shutter closing and opening it needs to know where the subject will move to in that 1/20 sec. Unless, of course you are saying that the camera effectively re-focuses from scratch every time the shutter re-opens in which case the first still applies because in a sequence predictive focussing will still be very important.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2017)

+1 Mikehit



jayphotoworks said:


> What I was trying to convey was:
> 
> a) The AF is exceptionally fast
> AND
> b) There is no blackout



You failed. 

When trying to convey independent concepts, you need to separate them. Try a comma, or put them in different sentences. Putting two concepts together in the same sentence linked by the word 'because' is not the right way to convey them separately.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 26, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > What I was originally said:
> ...



The A9 is calculating AF/AE at 60hz, or a calculation every 16.7ms. It might be simply using a brute-force approach in getting that next AF point/points rather than using a more traditional predictive approach which better suits an AF module and mirror setup. I felt that the camera just pops things into focus the minute it hits an AF point regardless of pattern or process. Like mentioned elsewhere, it avoids predictive errors this way and doesn't need specific af profiles to setup prior to certain sports/events.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> +1 Mikehit
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never used the word because in my original post, take a look again. 

The AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive with absolutely no blackout.

But what I should have said was:

The AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive. There is also no VF blackout.

I understand that going against Canon products on a Canon forum is not going to net me a pass on my English or grammar here. Fair enough.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> I *never used the word because* in my original post, take a look again.
> 
> The AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive *because* it doesn't have to be predictive with absolutely no blackout.



Can you actually compose pictures? I ask, because you appear to be blind.  8)


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> I understand that going against Canon products on a Canon forum is not going to net me a pass on my English or grammar here. Fair enough.



No-one really cares about you gong against Canon products. They really don't.
What people react to is false logic. Like a camera not using predictive focussing.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 26, 2017)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LdRJqjjRM


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 26, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that going against Canon products on a Canon forum is not going to net me a pass on my English or grammar here. Fair enough.
> ...



I'm really not making this up myself at all.

The a9 takes the best parts of Sony's existing on-sensor phase detection autofocus systems and takes them up a notch. Indeed, without a mirror blocking the autofocus points and with 60 calculations every second, the camera doesn't really need to 'predict' the same way other flagships do; it can just react to the scene in near-real time.

This is Dpreview's account of the camera's behavior. Whether or not this camera is fully predictive or reactive, it is capturing 20fps, and those 20fps are mostly in focus when in comparison with top-shelf flagship DSLRs that aren't shooting at 20fps.


----------



## ethanz (Oct 26, 2017)

stevelee said:


> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LdRJqjjRM



Might be better to use this link: https://youtu.be/k8LdRJqjjRM?t=1m13s


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



So is this an official Sony wording, or is this DPR's _assumption _of what is happening? 
I believe the the critical bit is the part I have highlighted in red - it suggests it does it differently, not that it does not do it at all. It reads to me like it calculates 60 times per second but what happens in the 1/60 second between calculations? I very much doubt the calculations will be done to coincide with the release time of the shutter.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 26, 2017)

ethanz said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LdRJqjjRM
> ...



Both give me the same 240p resolution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> I'm really not making this up myself at all.
> 
> The a9 takes the best parts of Sony's existing on-sensor phase detection autofocus systems and takes them up a notch. Indeed, without a mirror blocking the autofocus points and with 60 calculations every second, the camera doesn't really need to 'predict' the same way other flagships do; it can just react to the scene in near-real time.
> 
> This is Dpreview's account of the camera's behavior.



I'm really not making this up myself at all. 

The earth is flat. The Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.

This is the Flat Earth Society's account of the shape of the world. 

Happy Quote Unreliable Internet Sources In Blue Text Day, everyone! ;D


----------



## hne (Oct 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Have you tried flash photography on the kids? It gets you more light to work with.....
> ...



I use this contraption. Might get a few looks from other parents at the playground but boy are those pictures great!


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really not making this up myself at all.
> ...



All internet sources are inherently unreliable, but some bear more credibility than others. One can only perform their best due diligence based on the reviewers history. My perception of the AF system comes strictly from anecdotal experience, but in line with some of the more credible reviews out there. The editor at Dpreview has been reviewing and testing cameras for the last 9+ years, I'm sure his anecdotal experience might be somewhat more accurate than an armchair reviewer that doesn't even own or has ever shot on this camera.

Wouldn't you say so?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2017)

hne said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Boy could I ever have a lot of fun with that! Totally impractical on hiking and canoe trips, but boy would I ever get some great campfire pictures....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> The editor at Dpreview has been reviewing and testing cameras for the last 9+ years



Some editors at DPR are credible. Some are biased. One is an outright liar. 

But what I would say is that it's not worth my time to continue a discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge an egregiously false statement when called on it, *because* such an individual isn't worthy of respect.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 27, 2017)

boy do I also get a few looks with this contraption running and gunning. get's the job done though. I replaced GODOX 360II with GODOX TT685c in order to reduce the weight at least somewhat. I love your Octa box, btw. Awesome size.






hne said:


> I use this contraption. *Might get a few looks from other parents at the playground* but boy are those pictures great!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2017)

hne said:


> I use this contraption. Might get a few looks from other parents at the playground but boy are those pictures great!



Nice! Personally, I use a Lastolite Ezybox Speed-Lite, usually on an RRS flash bracket (although it can go directly on the hotshoe). The octa would give better catchlights.


----------



## ethanz (Oct 27, 2017)

stevelee said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...



I mean to start the video when he sings the line you are trying to reference.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > The editor at Dpreview has been reviewing and testing cameras for the last 9+ years
> ...



I had already explained what I had meant to convey. You continued to beat a dead horse. 

I wrote:

The AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive with no blackout.


What I meant:

The AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive. There is also no VF blackout.

How you decided to interpret this:

The AF is exceptionally fast and like the reviews say, it is reactive because it doesn't have to be predictive since it has no blackout.


The statement was not conveyed properly due to grammatical errors but it isn't a false statement because I didn't say it was fast because it had no blackout, I said it didn't need to be predictive because it can be reactive. The blackout was a separate concept entirely.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...


I assumed you meant that the AF is exceptionally fast.....

Come on people..... think about this...... You push the shutter, the camera does a final AF, and (presumably) 10ms later the image capture begins.... Or you can pick up your 1DX2, push the shutter, the camera does a final AF, and about 30ms later the image capture begins.....

One camera delays by 10ms, the other by 30ms.... OK, fine.... the Sony is faster..... but then again, the iDX2 (presumably) does a much better job of predicting AF changes so that negates the extra delay.... My bet is that there is no clear winner and that both cameras do a good job..... and besides, how much did things really move in the extra 20ms anyway?

This is not worth fighting over, particularly when the fight seems to be mostly nitpicking about semantics and perceived meaning.....


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 27, 2017)

Don, 20ms is 1/50s. An object that moves at 50km/h speed across the frame, travels approx. 27cm in 20ms time. It could be a deal breaker for someone who shoots with a long telephoto wide open.





Don Haines said:


> and besides, how much did things really move in the extra 20ms anyway?
> 
> This is not worth fighting over, particularly when the fight seems to be mostly nitpicking about semantics and perceived meaning.....


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 27, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Don, 20ms is 1/50s. An object that moves at 50km/h speed across the frame, travels approx. 27cm in 20ms time. It could be a deal breaker for someone who shoots with a long telephoto wide open.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it's moving that fast across the frame you're probably panning with it, regardless of the gear you're using.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 27, 2017)

I decided to poke around DPReview for some Fuji content and on the Open Discussion section I noticed this: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60271613

Which reads exactly the same as half the other threads when I joined 5 years ago.

Canon is the best system of Photographic Tools on the market, bar none, and most likely always will be.
I’m getting a Fuji X-E3, variety is nice and Fuji does a lot of unique things with their system, but I am under no delusions about where the futue of the industry is headed.
Technology _will_ equalize, Sony’s arms race can only get them so far and as soon as everyone is pushing computers to the limits you’re right back to square one and all of a sudden Canon wins at everything.
Just watch Sony have a few bad years and shut down the Alpha division.
Some day every half baked camera they’ve ever made is going to become a liability.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 27, 2017)

fair point, and what if the subject is incoming?  it's all rhetorics though as the original question was: how much the thing can / will move in 20ms?
We all know how well Canon AF cases work when tuned to a specific condition. Yes, Sony progressing really fast in that regard and it all starting to make sense finaly for many events and studio shooters (with small pen.. hands?  )



Orangutan said:


> If it's moving that fast across the frame you're probably panning with it, regardless of the gear you're using.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Oct 27, 2017)

eoren1 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Short answer seeing your lens lineup: stay with Canon.
> ...



To that list I would add reliability. I have now twice been persuaded to go and try a Sony A7 because it is clearly "better" than my 5D mark 3 isn't it? The first time was when the A7 was launched and the second time was when the A7ii was launched. On both occasions the camera crashed during the demo. The Sony salesman had to take the battery out to restart the camera. The second time it happened the salesman said "oh it often does that". What?? I have had 3 Canon DLSRs now and none of them have ever crashed or frozen. I get the feeling that Sony are so desperate to launch amazing new cameras with ground breaking features that they start selling products before they have been properly tested.


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 27, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> boy do I also get a few looks with this contraption running and gunning. get's the job done though. I replaced GODOX 360II with GODOX TT685c in order to reduce the weight at least somewhat. I love your Octa box, btw. Awesome size.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have a pair of Lastolite soft boxes on two flashes mounted on stands in my office and they work great. Walking around with them, especially in a crowd would be unwieldy, and I would fear from my gear. For mobility, I use Gary Fong diffusers- light, unobtrusive, easy to transport, etc.

https://www.garyfong.com/products/lightsphere-collapsible-speed-mount

And also, produces nice images.

Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 27, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



To me, jumping ship, or whatever you want to call it would be painful, not unlike for example, a divorce. I'm happy with my gear, and it serves me well. My gear doesn't limit the quality of my images- that would be me. In the mean time, go with a Sony. You want to trash Canon, I don't think anyone here is really offended. In reading the posts, I a at once amused, but also impressed with the sage and thoughtful replies that have been put forth.

Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 27, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



Not all internet sources are inherently unreliable.

I learned a long time ago, when I find that I am digging myself into a deeper and deeper hole, the first thing I do is stop digging. It works for me. Took me a while to figure it out. Good policy.

Scott


----------



## Jopa (Oct 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > The editor at Dpreview has been reviewing and testing cameras for the last 9+ years
> ...



DPR is a joke. Their overall credibility is about 0. Quoting DPR is no better than quoting Tony N or Ken Rockwell IMO.


----------



## hne (Oct 27, 2017)

The Elinchrom Deep Octa 70cm has a weight of 440g + speedring at 330g. The Neewer/Godox speedlight to Elinchrom bayonet adapter is 250g which sums up to just over 1 kg or 2¼lbs. That plus a Manfrotto Nano 5001B light stand (roughly the same weight as the rest combined) fits in a nylon pouch in the bag supplied with the octabox. A Yongnuo YN-685 speedlight plus YN-622TX-C radio trigger doesn't add too much weight and goes in the camera bag when not in use. Total setup time <2 minutes. Totally something that could be brought hiking if the reason for the hiking is photography.

I of course only bring this 2kg kit in its 70cm long bag when I know there will be real photo opportunities. Otherwise I keep a foldable easybox-ish mini soft box in my camera bag.



SecureGSM said:


> boy do I also get a few looks with this contraption running and gunning. get's the job done though. I replaced GODOX 360II with GODOX TT685c in order to reduce the weight at least somewhat. I love your Octa box, btw. Awesome size.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FunkyCamera (Oct 27, 2017)

scottkinfw said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sony fanboys will dig up whatever they can from wherever they can find it to back up their delusions. Why they're so devoted to such a 'system' (if you can even call it that) I have no idea. Sony has like 5 lenses, and all of them are beyond bad - not even on par with a proper Canon kit lense, never mind L glass. The bodies are tiny, fall apart easily, and they biggest question is what will happen first - will the software crash, or will the battery run out?

It's the only 'system' out there that's actually a downgrade from a point and shoot.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 27, 2017)

scottkinfw said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > boy do I also get a few looks with this contraption running and gunning. get's the job done though. I replaced GODOX 360II with GODOX TT685c in order to reduce the weight at least somewhat. I love your Octa box, btw. Awesome size.
> ...



IMO fong's tupperware is a light bomb. I think it's ok to use it in a room with white walls, but if they are not white - you'll be collecting all kind of color casts. Outdoors it's wasting a lot of light too.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 27, 2017)

Jump ship, you can't lose. 

If you change and are happy you've won. If you change and wish you hadn't then you won't be left wondering if you should have changed. It's a win-win situation


----------



## AWR (Oct 27, 2017)

Sony Social Media Marketing Team is trolling the internet again. 

Really sad, if someone writes this pro-Sony drivel without being paid. They should seriously check what Sony are about. Buying Golden Globes and being silly about it, is a perfect example how they value you and your intelligence. Not to mention "the Hack" or their customer service. Or all those sad stories from real filmmakers.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 27, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Jump ship, you can't lose.
> 
> If you change and are happy you've won. If you change and wish you hadn't then you won't be left wondering if you should have changed. It's a win-win situation



Best advice of all. Cameras are just things, you're not in a relationship. They don't care if you pick up a younger newer model.

However, asking random strangers on an internet forum if you should switch systems is pretty much a waste of time. (Although it's also a waste of time to respond to the question, so I guess we are even.)


----------



## Jopa (Oct 27, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Cameras are just things, you're not in a relationship.



Cameras are things for sure, but you can be in a relationship with lenses


----------



## Talys (Oct 27, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Jump ship, you can't lose.
> 
> If you change and are happy you've won. If you change and wish you hadn't then you won't be left wondering if you should have changed. It's a win-win situation



lol... or rent a camera and try it out for a day so that the second option won't cost you a whole bunch of money to be right back where you started, or worse, with a camera that you like less


----------



## unfocused (Oct 27, 2017)

Jopa said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras are just things, you're not in a relationship.
> ...



But with lenses, it's polyamorous.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras are things for sure, but you can be in a relationship with lenses
> ...



...unless you enjoy and rely upon first party AF performance, which I very much do.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Cameras are just things, you're not in a relationship.



Oh well I'm the type of guy who will never settle down
Where fancy cameras are well, you know that I'm around
I kiss 'em and I love 'em 'cause to me they're all the same
I hug 'em and I squeeze 'em they don't even know my name
They call me the wanderer, yeah the wanderer
I shoot around around around

Oh well there's Sony on my left and there's Nikon on my right
And Canon is the brand that I'll be with tonight
And when you ask me which one I love the best
I tear open my shirt I got Hasselbad on my chest
'Cause I'm the wanderer yeah the wanderer
I roam around around around

Oh well I roam from town to town
I go through life without a care
'Til I'm as happy as a clown
With my two fists of iron and I'm going nowhere

I'm the type of guy that likes to shoot around
I'm never in one place I roam from town to town
And when I find myself a-fallin' for some camera, yeah
I hop right into that car of mine and ride around the world
Yeah I'm the wanderer, yeah the wanderer
I shoot around around around, let's go

Oh yeah I'm the type of guy that likes to shoot around
I'm never in one place I roam from town to town
And when I find myself a-fallin' for some camera
I hop right into that car of mine and ride around the world
'Cause I'm a wanderer, yeah a wanderer
I shoot around around around, around, around
'Cause I'm a wanderer, yeah a wanderer
I shoot around around around, around around


----------



## bholliman (Oct 27, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras are just things, you're not in a relationship.
> ...



LOL! Priceless Don!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras are just things, you're not in a relationship.
> ...



Check out the rolling shutter on this guy... 8)

- A


----------



## ethanz (Oct 27, 2017)

Jopa said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras are just things, you're not in a relationship.
> ...



I agree. I treat my 200-400 like its a new born baby.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 27, 2017)

ethanz said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Unfortunately people that just buy a camera + a kit lens will never understand us. Nowadays cameras don't really have much value. Every year is something new. Probably not even worth our time spent on this forum arguing about their specs


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 27, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras are just things, you're not in a relationship.
> ...



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Don


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 28, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Jump ship, you can't lose.
> ...



I agree with you that Canon (company and my gear) won't care if a Sony a7r III joins the bag or kicks them out of it.

As for asking random strangers, isn't that the whole point of the internet? In real life, I know one guy who switched from a Canon 5DmkIII to the Sony a7rII. He does really nice landscape/seascape photography and saw a huge benefit in what he does. He does not do portraiture much so was hoping for input on that as well as thoughts from others who may have tried out the Sony alpha models.

And as dumb as it is to admit, the best advice was the guy mentioning checking out the camera at Best Buy. Forgot they care the lineup and did so at lunch one day. Was pleasantly surprised by how similar it was to the Canon in changing lenses (not opposite like Nikons). The body did feel small in hand and I'm not sure if the weight savings would offset some of that cramped feel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2017)

eoren1 said:


> He does not do portraiture much so was hoping for input on that as well as thoughts from others who may have tried out the Sony alpha models.



A friend who uses a D810 and shoots mainly studio portraits and birds tried out an a7RII. He found the focus tracking not quite good enough for birds, but the deal-breaker for him was the inability to focus quickly and accurately in his studio.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 28, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> eoren1 said:
> 
> 
> > He does not do portraiture much so was hoping for input on that as well as thoughts from others who may have tried out the Sony alpha models.
> ...



I bet he's a happy D850 owner now.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 28, 2017)

ethanz said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



It weighs about the same as a plump new born.


----------



## Jester74 (Oct 29, 2017)

Did he switch? 




neuroanatomist said:


> eoren1 said:
> 
> 
> > He does not do portraiture much so was hoping for input on that as well as thoughts from others who may have tried out the Sony alpha models.
> ...


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 30, 2017)

If it's incoming at that speed, I'm going to duck. F&#k the photo.



SecureGSM said:


> fair point, and what if the subject is incoming?  it's all rhetorics though as the original question was: how much the thing can / will move in 20ms?
> We all know how well Canon AF cases work when tuned to a specific condition. Yes, Sony progressing really fast in that regard and it all starting to make sense finaly for many events and studio shooters (with small pen.. hands?  )
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 30, 2017)

What amuses me about the ‘specs’ of these competing cameras is the caveats and out right lies they have attached. 

I don’t remember Canon specs having so much liberty taken with the actual capabilities of their cameras. Things like the electronic shutter on the Sony A7RIII having so much rolling shutter it is unusable on moving subjects, which largely defeats the object of a silent shutter, or the D850 that can’t get close to the listed buffer specs, not even a fraction of the specs! The Sony 12 bit file if you want the 10fps, the Nikon $1,000 required extras if you want the 10fps, etc etc.


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 30, 2017)

It sounds like you're chasing medium format ("bigger sensor with more DR"), mirrorless (eye detection, lighter), _and_ action SLR ("kids sports") all in one... and that really doesn't exist.

_A little background info so you know where I'm coming from and my advice has context: I use everything, and I do mean everything. Canon, Fuji, Sony, Nikon, Phase, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Rollei. Panasonic now and then. All small formats, a few medium formats, and a couple of large formats, analogue and digital; hell, I used to even offer plate shooting. My primary work is very intensive archival and cataloguing for a few specific corporations, which involves many of the same techniques as landscape (maximising resolution and dynamic range, pixel-perfect stitching, viewing at 1:1 or very large print, etc), and conversely as a hobby I try my hand at a little wildlife photography (so there's your low-light speed shooting); over the years I've done a bit of everything from the most basic amateur portraits to music to documentary for the BBC. I'm not terribly old but it's fair to say I have a helluva lot of experience anyway. I'm not perfect and absolutely nobody's taste and needs will ever line up perfectly with your own, but suffice to say I consider myself pretty well versed in switching between systems and I don't have any particular horse in this race. 
Though, full disclosure, I do use Canon just a little bit more than the others; it's hard to beat the sheer depth of the Canon lens selection. As it happens my favourite Canon lenses are the 70-200 f/4L IS and the 100mm f/2, and I have a certain fondness for the 35mm f/2 IS and 17-40 f/4 even though they don't feature in my work often, so hey, we've got those in common._

Okay, with that out of the way.

Right now, a bigger sensor and more dynamic range means getting a medium format system. Frankly, if you can afford a medium format system, you probably wouldn't even have made this thread. Medium format isn't something anybody switches to casually. Either you need it and can get it and you know it... or it's not even remotely on the cards for you. Think hard about whether you can—let alone would want to—make that jump. Medium format cameras will certainly give you that step up in image quality for your big landscape prints, but they're very expensive and very, very slow. You'd want to keep your Canon gear in order to keep doing your sports shooting.

Ditching the idea of a bigger sensor and trying to keep you to one system, you could try the Nikon D850. It's got better dynamic range than any Canon and more resolution—without the detail-destroying low-pass filter—than your current 5D3. It's also got incredibly good AF and shoots very, very fast. Nikon's live view shooting isn't so great, so you don't quite get that perfect eye detect of a mirrorless system, and it's not a small or light camera by any means, but it does do _everything_ else, so there'd be no need to maintain a second system like you would need if you got into medium format. I've been playing around with one for a week now and it's hard to not add one to my personal kit. It's faster than any Canon except the 1DX2, the AF is—at the time of writing—the very best I've ever seen in any system, and the image quality is as good as it gets for a 35mm sensor.

I've yet to get my hands on a α7R3 yet, but for what it's worth, it's the first Sony body I've not been terribly excited for. It's great on paper, but the α9 is still categorically faster (that's the whole point of the α9) and the rest of the α7R3 doesn't seem to offer enough over the D850 for me to feel it's worth having both, especially with Sony's sketchier lenses; Sony have improved their lenses a little, but with the α7R2 I still get better (from a purely technical point of view; there's no accounting for personal taste) results with Sigma, Tamron, and adapted Canon lenses than any Sony lens. Having used the D850 and used the other Sonys enough, I'm finding it very difficult to care about the α7R3. The α9 is a helluva machine, if the fastest speed and best AF in the smallest package is something you're interested in. I can see a lot of people picking up both the α9 and the α7R3 so they have one camera for speed and one for image quality. But if you don't want to pay out for two bodies then Sony is a bit of a tough sell. If you'd said you were doing a lot of video then I'd recommend Sony right away, because that's a big strength of theirs, but landscape and indoor sports? Not so much.

If you've been tempted by the 5DS R but are worried about speed, again I'd suggest considering having two bodies. The 5DS R for big print quality and something like a 7D2 for speed (though the 7D3 should be coming within the next 12 months) is a great combo, and though having two bodies may seem like a big investment, buying two Canons at least means you can keep using the same lenses, which will in most cases work out cheaper than switching to another brand.
I will suggest that if you're finding your 5D3 can't keep up with kids' sports, something is either mechanically wrong with the camera, it's not set up well for the task, or you're plain doing something wrong. The 5D3 has absolutely minimal shutter lag and a great AF system; I've yet to find any mirrorless camera which locks focus _faster_, so if keeping up has been a problem for you with the 5D3, any mirrorless body is going to disappoint you. 
Really, the main problem I see with your kit you list is you're using f/4 zoom lenses, which are always going to be that touch slower to focus in lower-light situations (e.g. indoors) than if you have any of their f/2.8 equivalents, let alone much faster primes. I like the Canon f/4 zooms myself 'cause nothing I do ever requires that very shallow depth of field of faster lenses and the f/4 zooms are a reasonable weight, but there's no mistake that when I need speed, I get out the f/2.8 zooms or specialist primes. 
For what it's worth, I've had a 5D2 (yes, *2*) keeping up with a lanner falcon—which moves at around 85-110mph and is only about 2'x3', so far smaller and faster target than any 12-year-old!—when using the 300mm f/2.8, while the 300mm f/4 has struggled even on a 1DX body. That one stop really does make a lot of difference to AF speed; the more light you can get inside the camera body, the better AF will be, always; it can be absolutely vital when shooting indoors. Moving to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS could be enough to solve your speed problems (and it's a _touch_ sharper than the f/4, to boot) and should be cheaper than switching systems. Consider renting one to see if a lens upgrade is actually all you need. The same goes for the wide-angle and standard zooms. It really is also worth thinking about whether your settings & technique could be improved, too, because a 5D3 really should be able to keep up with any sports requirements, even with the f/4 lenses being a touch slower.

A last note, almost regardless of whether you switch systems or not, is to look at third-party lenses. The current Sony 24-105 isn't as good as the Sigma 24-105 (and the new Sony is pitched as a lower model, so that won't be any better), and in fact neither is the Canon 24-105. There's also things like the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC which absolutely destroys all the 24-105s when used at f/4; Canon is thought to be making their own 24-70 f/2.8 IS, but that one will certainly be a lot more expensive and there's no telling when it'll come out (if it ever does). The general rule across their ranges is that Sigma's optics beat everyone other than Zeiss, but their AF can be inconsistent; Tamron have perfectly accurate AF but it's a touch slower, and their optics aren't quite as good as Sigma (though still better than most Canon, Nikon, and Sony first-party lenses). So whether it's a lens upgrade for your current body or a new lens for a new system, it's really worth keeping those third-parties in mind. A Sony body and Sony's 24-105 isn't really that great a swap, but a Sony body and the Sigma 24-105 is a helluva all-round combination. (In fact Sony are especially good for it, as being mirrorless eliminates the slight AF accuracy inconsistency some Sigmas can have.)


So, to summarise:

- First think about whether a simple lens upgrade and/or a second Canon body could fill in what you're missing. This will be cheaper than switching brands entirely.

- If that's not enough, try to be realistic about your expectations and needs; there's no such thing as one camera which has all of a bigger sensor, better IQ, lighter weight, _and_ more speed. You _will_ have to give up [/i]something[/i], or use two bodies/systems to cover it all.

- For a single body, the Nikon D850 comes closest to fulfilling what you ask for. It's not a bigger sensor but it's got everything else.

- The Sony α7R3 seems very good but always be wary of jumping on the latest hottest product; you don't yet know what (if any) problems they might have and it's easy to get swept up in the hype. Again, even as someone who likes the Sonys a lot, I can't say it's exciting me like the D850 has already proven. I'm very sure it would make a great second body, though, as the α7R2 already does.

- Canon is expected to put out quite a few new products over the next 12 months or so, such as the 7D3 for sports, so it might be worth you waiting to see what turns up; if you've waited 12 years, another 12 months isn't going to kill you.

- Medium format + a fast SLR or Sony α9 would achieve everything you want, but will also be by far the most expensive option. Keep it in mind, but try to not get too fixated on the idea unless you're really willing and bale to go all-in.

- Whether you switch or stay, keep those third-parties in mind; for landscapes, especially, you might find one of the ultra-sharp Sigma lenses is a better upgrade for you than a body swap. Switching systems can be really expensive and it's always disappointing if you switch expecting a big improvement and you end up with pretty much the same results (especially with Sony, where the sensors are great but the lenses are decidedly average); third-party lenses can solve both the quality and cost issues associated with swapping systems.

- No matter what, rent everything before you make any big decisions. Swapping systems always winds up costing more than you will think yet doesn't always change your results much, so a couple extra hundred to try everything out for a week or so before hand so you're absolutely sure it's right for you can be absolutely worth it.


Take it from someone who would really, really like to be able to scale down and work with just one system: hopping back-and-forth like this is a big pain for very little gain. Do not overestimate the results and do not underestimate the hassle. I'd hate to see someone waste time and money switching systems if it won't actually deliver what they expect. There's certainly a lot of things other systems can do better than your current Canon gear, but everything is always a trade and a compromise. Think carefully, think hard, and take your time.


----------



## Talys (Oct 30, 2017)

@acefibble: thanks for sharing your thoughts your post. I appreciate your perspective!


----------



## jayphotoworks (Oct 30, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> - Canon is expected to put out quite a few new products over the next 12 months or so, such as the 7D3 for sports, so it might be worth you waiting to see what turns up; if you've waited 12 years, another 12 months isn't going to kill you.



I think Canon will definitely release a new FF mirrorless camera in 2018, but the real question is whether they will deliver such a product with a new mount.

If it is a new Canon mount, it will be essentially a system swap more or less. You will still need to re-acquire all of your existing EF lenses for the new mount if you want to benefit from the improved performance they will provide. If Canon releases an adapter to use EF lenses on this new mount, it will come with speed and compatibility compromises similar to Sony's A mount to E mount adapters. Native E mount lenses will generally outperform adapted A lenses or support additional AF points and functionality, etc. In addition, given the current trend of mirrorless systems including all of Canon new STM and Nano USM lenses, they will all be focus-by-wire design.

But will the move to a mirrorless system really bring about a dramatic change to your work regardless if you are switching systems to a new Canon product or the competition? I felt mirrorless brought about a huge change to my work because I also wanted to be able to shoot film and video, but if I were only working with stills, I'm not sure I would have made the switch at all.



aceflibble said:


> - No matter what, rent everything before you make any big decisions. Swapping systems always winds up costing more than you will think yet doesn't always change your results much, so a couple extra hundred to try everything out for a week or so before hand so you're absolutely sure it's right for you can be absolutely worth it.



I find renting is expensive. Up here north of the US border, current rental costs for a modern camera body ranges from $185 to $250 a day. If your cash-flow allows it and you can wait, it is usually better to buy it used if you can tolerate the risk with the second hand market. I'm not sure you can really come to grips with operating a new camera system in 1-2 days. You probably want to put it through its paces for at least a week if not more. If it really doesn't suit your needs, you can re-sell.

For me, a 2 month old C200 came up for sale locally along with a 24-105 II. The owner was moving to a Red Raven, so I picked up his camera complete with original invoice for 70% of list price which I could easily re-sell. I took it out with me in the field for 1-2 projects and I liked it enough to consider keeping it permanently. The price-point I was able to pick it up really made the difference because I would not have considered this camera at its MSRP.


----------



## OSOK (Oct 30, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> - No matter what, rent everything before you make any big decisions.




Best advice I've seen on here in a long time.

Renting all the high end stuff isn't cheap - but it's a LOT cheaper than switching systems, and a lot cheaper than making mistakes in upgrades.

The grass isn't always greener ....

Typically, a specific piece of gear really needs to have something revolutionary to justify a switch. Or, a user really has to know what they want for their workflow and can really make use of a specific feature.

Otherwise, for IQ - there's tons of studio shot comparisons out there no need to rent. You will find little practical difference in reality.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> If Canon releases an adapter to use EF lenses on this new mount, it will come with speed and compatibility compromises similar to Sony's A mount to E mount adapters.



Do you know that for sure?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon releases an adapter to use EF lenses on this new mount, it will come with speed and compatibility compromises similar to Sony's A mount to E mount adapters.
> ...



[sarcasm]Surely he does.....[/sarcasm] 

You can have a camera system optimized for small size, or you can have a system optimized for performance, but you are not going to get both......

You could make a tiny body FF mirrorless camera with a shorter lens flange, but where is the real estate required to mount controls?

You could make a tiny body FF mirrorless camera with a shorter lens flange, but you would pi** off the existing lens owners...

You could make a tiny body FF mirrorless camera with a shorter lens flange, but bending the light sharper plays hell with chromatic aberration....

You could make a tiny body FF mirrorless camera with a shorter lens flange, but if the goal is to make things small, you are never going to be able to touch the "M" system....

Just my opinion, but when Canon comes out with a mirrorless FF camera, it will be a normal sized body with the ergonomics that we all know and love, and it will take normal EF lenses


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon releases an adapter to use EF lenses on this new mount, it will come with speed and compatibility compromises similar to Sony's A mount to E mount adapters.
> ...



Why do we have to look to Sony for adaptor letdowns? We have this information for EF already, don't we?

Can someone speak to native EF use on an full EF mount SLR using DPAF in LiveView vs. adaptored EF use on an EOS-M? Shouldn't that set a baseline bar of expectation for a FF mirrorless offering in a thin mount?

What's the verdict? Is it identical speed/accuracy/consistency? Is it slower/less accurate/less consistent? How much?

- A


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



I use EF lenses with an adapter on an M5 and have no complaints. The focus consistency is remarkable, and the speed seems OK. Don Haines did not explain why there should be speed or compatibility problems. .


----------



## Talys (Oct 30, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Just my opinion, but when Canon comes out with a mirrorless FF camera, it will be a normal sized body with the ergonomics that we all know and love, and it will take normal EF lenses



I would love if Canon's FF mirrorless were 80D or 6D2 sized with all that extra space used for better heat dissipation on a faster processor, support for an internal m. 2, or optional second battery.

I'm would only consider it if it yielded a higher BIF keeper rate though. Plus, the EVF would have to be very pleasant to use. I think the M5 isn't terrible, but it needs to be a couple of steps up from that.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 30, 2017)

I've never used or even picked up a mirrorless camera. I've been using cameras with mirrors for over 45 years and never thought of them having problems that I wanted solved by removing the mirror. (I lock up the mirror if I think there might be a vibration problem.) I like looking through an optical viewfinder. I don't imagine that mirrorless cameras have those.

When I want to travel light, I use my G7X II. I never feel a need for something in between it and a DSLR. So for me, I don't have any interest in the mirrorless camera class other than some curiosity that I might be missing something that others perceive as advantage.

Can any of you suggest some reason that I might someday down the road have some interest in having a mirrorless camera system?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I was being sarcastic... Unless they REALLY goof up bad, it should make no difference. Some of these comparisons judge one tech level of mirrorless against a different tech level of DSLR and give highly biased results. Given the same tech level, there should be no difference. Note that this assumes a similar lens as well. You can't slap a brand new prime on a mirrored camera and a bargain kit lens on a mirrorless and hope to get a meaningful comparison..... yet review after review does....


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2017)

Don - you being sarcastic! As far as I can see, shortening the flange-sensor distance and then adding an adapter for lenses with longer rear element to sensor distance should make little diminution AF speed and accuracy.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Don - you being sarcastic! As far as I can see, shortening the flange-sensor distance and then adding an adapter for lenses with longer rear element to sensor distance should make little diminution AF speed and accuracy.



I don't think it is the connection as such as the need for the lens and the body to talk to each other. I can imagine that Sony developed new algorithms for their E mount lenses and the adapter has to 'translate' the discussion in the same way it does for Canon/Nikon lenses and this will hit performance.
In theory, Canon should be able to overcome that problem but it is within the realms of possibility that maximising AF on mirrorless is different to maximising AF on DSLR which may present a (not insurmountable) problem of translation; and given that all current EF lenses are designed for DSLR early iterations of the body may see a slight hit on AF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> I use EF lenses with an adapter on an M5 and have no complaints. The focus consistency is remarkable, and the speed seems OK. Don Haines did not explain why there should be speed or compatibility problems. .



One would _think_ there would be no incompatibility with an OEM adapter. But recall...with an EF lens mounted on the EOS M, M2, or M3 via the Canon EF mount adapter, when using AI Servo, the camera would lock focus after the first shot in the burst, instead of continuing to focus between shots as AI Servo should (and does on those bodies with EF-M lenses). So in Canon's own recent history, there's an example of system-intrinsic focus issues with an adapter.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 30, 2017)

stevelee said:


> I've never used or even picked up a mirrorless camera. I've been using cameras with mirrors for over 45 years and never thought of them having problems that I wanted solved by removing the mirror. (I lock up the mirror if I think there might be a vibration problem.) I like looking through an optical viewfinder. I don't imagine that mirrorless cameras have those.
> 
> When I want to travel light, I use my G7X II. I never feel a need for something in between it and a DSLR. So for me, I don't have any interest in the mirrorless camera class other than some curiosity that I might be missing something that others perceive as advantage.
> 
> Can any of you suggest some reason that I might someday down the road have some interest in having a mirrorless camera system?



I never had much interest in mirrorless. Most of the advantages were things that didn't matter to me and my ways of shooting - things like a much wider coverage of (and more) AF points, having higher FPS and no need to AFMA your lenses. Other features more prevalent in mirrorless are more info in the viewfinder such as focus peaking, zebras, histograms, etc. (although these are possible with overlays in an OVF). The one thing that I found very useful is that you can see your exposure in the EVF - and any changes you make to exposure. I found this one feature so useful that I now own 2 mirrorless cameras and none with an OVF.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I use EF lenses with an adapter on an M5 and have no complaints. The focus consistency is remarkable, and the speed seems OK. Don Haines did not explain why there should be speed or compatibility problems. .
> ...



Does that happen too with the M5 and M6?


----------



## eoren1 (Oct 30, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> So, to summarise:
> 
> - First think about whether a simple lens upgrade and/or a second Canon body could fill in what you're missing. This will be cheaper than switching brands entirely.
> 
> ...



Wow Ace, 

That was a brilliant post - thank you for your time and effort! (To answer someone else, THIS is why it is worth posting to internet forums).

To answer some of your questions/concerns/thoughts.

1. Lenses
I've considered upgrading my set but prefer the f/4 lineup for the good optics balanced with low weight. I've had the 70-200/2.8 IS in my 'cart' a number of times but never bought it as it is twice the weight of my f/4 version. 
I have considered the 100-400 II for better reach with sports but had not pulled the trigger on that due to the concern of potentially switching systems. One of the real benefits of the mirrorless system is shaving weight off the body and ending up with a kit no heavier than I have now.
As for third party lenses, I had the awesome Sigma 30/1.4 years ago on my Canon 50D and it was great but ended up having focus issues later and I found it a pain to deal with Sigma service. I've read about their Art series lenses and been tempted but haven't bought yet.

2. Autofocus with the 5D3
Not sure what to tell you. I've read about the AF settings at length and currently use Case 4 with Tracking at 0, Accel/Decel at +1 and AF pt auto switching at 0. Use AF-On to focus and shoot with shutter button. The Canon nails focus maybe 80-85% of the time? (guesstimate). It's pulled off my kid and grabbed another in soccer even without a tight grouping of players. Happened with basketball as well. Frustrating when it does. At max frame rate, I've felt that it missed the 'in between' shots on more than one occasion. I'm a disciplined shooter and think I have good technique but may be wrong.

3. Nikon 850
I tried switching to Nikon before I bought the 50D and found that literally everything was backwards (putting on lens, every dial/switch). It was frustrating and I gave up after 5 minutes. Don't see myself doing that now and thought the Sony was a bit more 'Canon-like' from that standpoint when I briefly handled it at Best Buy. 

4. Medium Format
I get the appeal and understand the potential improvements (at least equal to the jump from 50D to 5D3) but am not interested in a second system plus second set of lenses

5. Waiting
This is probably what I'll end up doing. For good or bad, I chose Canon as my system 12 years ago and am probably 'stuck' with them now. I get that the differences may not be as huge as they seem on paper (and in fact I just read a report that the a7rIII has no appreciable DR improvement over the a7rII). In 12 months it's possible that Canon produces a successor to the 5DS that improves fps and DR to bring it on par with Nikon/Sony (though I've been waiting/watching for some real sensor improvement from Canon - haven't we all?). As good as their lenses are, it amazes me that they've shown so little innovation on that front.

I guess what I'm left wondering is if the 5D3 shutter failed tomorrow (I'm at 150,000 actuations), would I really be okay with getting a 5D4 or 5DS for the same price as the Sony a7rIII. Or would it then be worth looking at the system swap...

Thanks again for the thorough post. It really is appreciated.

E


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2017)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



No, they fixed it...and it only took until the 4th generation. :


----------



## DaviSto (Oct 30, 2017)

> Just my opinion, but when Canon comes out with a mirrorless FF camera, it will be a normal sized body with the ergonomics that we all know and love, and it will take normal EF lenses


It's not even as if Canon were trying to disguise things. It is bringing out new lens after new lens in full EF mount ... and the kind of expensive specialist glass that is not going to appeal to the kind of photographer who will happily accept all the compromises that go with using an adapter.

Canon will develop FF mirrorless in EF-mount together with a new range of wide-to-standard lenses that recess into the newly vacant mirror box. Couple with the new lenses, these bodies will return almost all of the weight and most of the size advantages of Sony's E-mount for travel and landscape photographers ... but they will have huge ergonomic advantages over Sony's horribly cramped format and they will pair properly with long telephotos. And every EF-mount lens ever made (not to mention very EF-S lens) will continue to work perfectly with Canon's new mirrorless bodies without adaptation.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 30, 2017)

dak723 said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Can any of you suggest some reason that I might someday down the road have some interest in having a mirrorless camera system?
> ...



Thanks for the response. That suggests that if some of that is of interest to me, I can see it on the live view screen of my DSLR, though maybe not everything. So far I haven't felt limited by the AF point coverage of the 6D2, though that is a common point of criticism. I guess I'm used to focusing manually through the viewfinder in unusual circumstances, and I don't recall ever wanting to focus on something way up in the corner of the frame. And if I did, I know how to press down the shutter button halfway and reframe.

But, yes, I can see how those features could be of interest for some folks, if not for me right now.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2017)

stevelee said:


> I've never used or even picked up a mirrorless camera. I've been using cameras with mirrors for over 45 years and never thought of them having problems that I wanted solved by removing the mirror.
> 
> [truncated]
> 
> ...



Those comments imply the point of mirrorless is to (a) be smaller and/or (b) perform at a lower level than a proper FF SLR.

When you consider that an EVF-based rig gives you...


Handheld liveview with the camera held up to your eye -- not held 12" away like an iPad
Proper MF focus-assist without needing to buy a 1-series rig to get manual focusing screens
Amplify light in dark rooms, allowing MF peaking use of AF lenses in really dark places
No mirror slap for 100% of your shooting in realtime -- not just for MLU tripod work
Max burst rate no longer constrained by mirrorbox design -- potentially very high fps burst rates in low/mid-level FF bodies

...one could climb over the first-glance size appeal and see that mirrorless is not solely about being smaller or less functionality. In some cases, it mirrorless actually do _more_ than an SLR. 

I still principally shoot with an SLR and my other camera is a mirrorless one from Apple. : So I'm no mirrorless fanboy -- but I look forward to the day that I can get mirrorless advantages with my EF lenses in FF with a Canon first party AF camera.

- A


----------



## stevelee (Oct 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Those comments imply the point of mirrorless is to (a) be smaller and/or (b) perform at a lower level than a proper FF SLR.
> 
> When you consider that an EVF-based rig gives you...
> 
> ...



I use one of those Apple mirrorless cameras, too, in addition to my G7X II. For travel, I find the convenience of the latter to more than outweigh the compromises involved. And the former has the advantage of being with me always.

It sounds like I might want to get a FF mirrorless camera by 2024. The challenges of taking pictures of the eclipse with my T3i, mainly having to use live view in bright sunlight for composing and focusing through an 18-stop filter, suggest that live view through a viewfinder can be handy.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Exodus 20:5 King James Version
_Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
_


----------



## slclick (Oct 31, 2017)

Wait...there are OTHER camera manufacturers? Nah, must be a rumor.


----------



## OSOK (Oct 31, 2017)

Everyone has different needs, so here's my $0.02 as I'm sure there's others who can relate.

Let's address the never ending quest for better and better bodies with an age old fact -- *LENSES far outweigh BODIES when it comes to results*. They are a bigger part of the equation. No crappy kit lens can ever get the same portrait look that my 70-200 2.8 II can. Doesn't matter if I have the best and newest bodies on the market.

Canon, as we all know and even Nikon and Sony people can mostly admit, has the best glass. Sure, they can get edged out here and there on sharpness, or maybe speed or some other factor. But, when you combine speed, IQ, price, and all factors, Canon is a clear winner. Canon 24-70 2.8 II is street pricing from authorized dealers in the $1,500 range. This lens beats up the Sony and Nikon equivalents easily...just one example. The 16-35 is another example, both he F4 and 2.8...The 70-200 2.8 II, Nikon has finally matched it, but for $1,000 more!!!! 

Now, Canon is not the most cutting edge on bodies. Most can admit that here. They'll justify it 100 different ways, some legit, some are a stretch. But the fact is, you can get better bodies elsewhere. However, in the end, when you take a great lens and a decent body - you get good results. The competition has great bodies and decent glass that gets good results.


Ok, all that said -- this is what *I* do...

I own a set of 2.8 L glass and some good primes. Right now, I run a 6D. That's it. 

Here's why.

The 6D is a very high value body. It accomplishes what I need for about 95% of my uses. I'm not a professional photographer. 6D can give amazing portraits, landscapes, macro, even some sports or action if you can time with your finger. For my day to day, week to week regular photography - it is more than what most people need.

Remember, there was a time when 20mp was considered amazing super high resolution....

I'm not here to promote the 6D. My point is, make an accurate assessment of what your real, day to day NEEDS are. That's what I did. And for my needs, the 6D is pretty darn good. It will serve me well until Canon offers up a better value full frame like the D850 or A7R3. 

In assessing my needs, I asked myself the following --

How often do I really, truly need 10-14fps?

How often do I really, truly need 50mp?

How often do I shoot landscape with the intent to print wall sized?

How often do I really, truly need an AF system that can track a football player going down field?

How often do I get paid to shoot an event where I need dual slots to avoid a disaster if memory card fails? (I'm not a pro, but will pick up some small work here and there)


In MY uses....that is less than 5-6 times a year, if that. Again, scenarios where the above features are a MUST to get the images. Not scenarios where it would be nice to have, but scenarios where it's needed. Very few.


So what I do is, I rent the 5DSR, 1DX2 or more often the 7D2, or 5D4 depending on what I need for the occasion. Renting is not cheap, but it is far, far, far cheaper than buying any one of these cameras and eating their depreciation. These are expensive bodies which are updated by Canon every three years. 

At 20mp, I can capture stunning landscapes that no one, except for maybe some rich person who has an 8K monitor, can even view at full resolution. So unless I'm going to print huge which is very rare for me and I bet rare for most people, I don't need a 5DS. I also don't need to blaze away at 14fps. My most commonly needed camera is a 5D4. This is because it has better AF for moving people like a wedding (not sports), dual slots, and more speed than the 6D for events. I'll rent this body for 3 day or 5...doesn't cost much and I get results when I need it.


The last higher dollar Canon I had was the 5D3. Great body and for its time a good value compared to the competition. I sold it a little before the 5D4 came out. My "cost of ownership" was approx $700 for 3 years. That's a little over $230 per year and that's pretty cheap. I didn't do the same thing again with the 5D4, because I don't feel resale will be anywhere as good sometime in 2019-2020 given what the competition is putting out and I don't want to deal with the process.

Instead, I just run a cheap 6D - I get quality that 99% of people cannot appreciate anyway and I get out of the never ending upgrade cycle that is costly.

People who buy and keep bodies have to be satisfied with them for a long time (6-7 years or more), otherwise that's a lot of cash to put into something that depreciates so quickly. Lenses hold value more, aren't updated as often, and again, are the most important factor in IQ and achieving the look you want. So it is better to own glass, and rent bodies, than own bodies, and rent glass in my opinion.

Sure, the Sony A7R3 is a killer. But their lenses are not that great. It isn't worth spending that much money on that body for me. In 2 years or less, the A7R4 will be out rendering this thing ancient and depreciating it more. Sony glass isn't terrible, but it costs considerably more than Canon and at the very best, in some examples, only equals it. The grass is not greener on the other side. Canon might be a bit conservative, perhaps even stingy with specs, but in the end - the IQ is at least as good, if not better. Despite the "worse" sensor, and less specs in bodies. It's the final result that matters.


If you're not made of money to be upgrading bodies constantly, or not a full time working pro -- I think either owning one body and being happy with it, or using the rental approach as-needed like I do does better for costs and results long term. 

I know that I do not exceed even $900 in rentals per year. Not even close. That's $1,800 every 2 years at the worst which is an overestimate. Still less than buying a semi-pro body new and owning. I get to then use specialized cameras that dominate for the intended purpose.

If you buy and sell, the cost comes down, but - the problem with Canon is, do you buy and sell off a sports camera, a high res body and others every cycle? If you add up the loss per camera - it becomes a lot. The cost of ownership goes up quite a bit. Nikon D850 is a real first in a sense, in that their users will now have a camera that covers a lot of other bodies all in one. It's a high rez landscape and portrait camera, an event camera, a sports camera, wildlife. Not much it can't do. That's a high value and worth the $3,300 asking price. It reminds me of the leap the 5D3 was in its time.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 1, 2017)

OSOK said:


> Everyone has different needs, so here's my $0.02 as I'm sure there's others who can relate.
> 
> Let's address the never ending quest for better and better bodies with an age old fact -- *LENSES far outweigh BODIES when it comes to results*. They are a bigger part of the equation. No crappy kit lens can ever get the same portrait look that my 70-200 2.8 II can. Doesn't matter if I have the best and newest bodies on the market.
> 
> ...



You will have to pay me for reading this ^


----------



## Patlezinc (Nov 10, 2017)

Sorry I did not read all the pages...

I am wondering too if I need to go to the new A7riii.
Really temptated by the eye focus feature.

Here are the 2 problems stopping me :
1- metabones adaptator seems not to control all canon lenses. Seems to be worst with sigma (I have the 35mm ART, the 50mm ART the 135 f2 L , the 100mm 2.8 L and the 24-70 f4). And more, metabones seems NOT to handle eye focus...
2- the two times reviewers posted raw files of the Sony, Focus was more on lips than on eyes (but reviewers were proud to promote the Sony performance..)
I love fast apertures, and perhaps eye detection on the Sony can’t be so efficient at f1.4...

So my options are to take a 5d mark 4 , jump to Sony, or wait a mirrorless from Canon.

Some says that dslr will die. Not sure what he does mean for a 5d4 owner in fact (and not sure it will happen)...

Thank for your advices.


----------



## slclick (Nov 10, 2017)

I went over to Oly for a while but am now back and so glad I am, those menus were atrocious!


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 10, 2017)

Patlezinc said:


> Sorry I did not read all the pages...
> 
> I am wondering too if I need to go to the new A7riii.
> Really temptated by the eye focus feature.
> ...



Apparently the Metabones V adapter is much superior than the Metabones IV, even when the IV has had all the updates. I think the only way to answer your questions is to hire one and try it out. 
I have read that eye AF is not as efficient at f1.4 (maybe narrower apertures mask any deficiency with greater AF) but I always thought it was less about spot-on focus and more about following people as they move around.


----------



## Patlezinc (Nov 10, 2017)

Yes, shooting at 2.8 should solve this issue.
But it is not the idea when you can at 1.4.
In that way, the Sony is less attractive (I prefer to shoot with my native lenses).
The 5d4 seems to have a good face recognition , both in viewfinder and live view mode. 

Hiring a a7 in my village will be a big challenge ^^


----------



## Patlezinc (Nov 11, 2017)

I finally read all 5d IV review, 300 pages of forums, a7 forums, etc.
Mirorless are not the paradise some says. It is sure.

5d costs 3800€ in France. Found one nearly new at 2500€ , I took it. Will receive Tuesday.
Was worried about the touch screen not moving but at the end, WiFi connection on an iPhone is a movable screen!

5d Will not beat others on the spec sheet, but will be very good to use I am sure.
And it is a Canon, so I trust the concept.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 13, 2017)

Jopa said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras are just things, you're not in a relationship.
> ...



;D I consider the camera to be the Daisy Dukes and Halter. I consider what's underneath to be the lens. What's underneath lasts longer and is sexier too. ;D


----------



## johnjohnjohno (Nov 16, 2017)

Canon of course


----------



## eoren1 (Dec 4, 2017)

*Still on the fence*

So I was able to borrow a Sony a7rII from a friend who lent it to me for two weeks. It came with the Sony 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 35/2.8.

Impressions:
Body is much smaller for good and bad. I weighed the Sony+35 vs my Canon 5D + 35/2 and the former was half the weight. Holding the Sony was fine with a small lens. Not bad with the bigger 24-70 and 70-200 but definitely didn’t fit like the Canon.

Image files aren’t too far apart. Ive mostly been shooting indoors and shot the moon last night. That meant I was at iso 1600+ where the two cameras are very close.

Shot my daughter with the Sony 70-200 and Canon 70-200 both at f/4 and there was little to no difference between the files except skin tones and color in general is quite different even at same WB. Sony was a bit warmer - showed her bluish purple jacket with more purple in it. Canon showed it as more blue. I used a custom WB using the grey asphalt. Can’t post pix right now as at work.

One real frustration was autofocus. Eye AF on Sony really is awesome (though doesn’t seem to work on cats/dogs). I could not figure out how to simply set a focus point like I would on the Canon though. 

Will post more as play with combo a bit more.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 4, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Ha! I _don't_ have a relationship with my lens, unless my 35mm ART learns to talk back when I curse its AF. My condition is more on the order of OCD.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 4, 2017)

I am not jumping ship. I have considered an a7R III, but this thread and others on this forum (and the Sony forum) have convinced me the time is not right. The time will be right when Sony or Canon comes out with a reasonably-priced 400 or 500mm f/5 or f/5.6. Which will be first?


----------



## smithcon (Dec 4, 2017)

I ended up jumping ship; picked up my A7R III on Friday from BestBuy, piling up rewards points and using a 10% discount coupon I had, I was able to get it for about 2600 (thanks to some appliance purchases earlier in the year). 

I am having some trouble getting used to the different ergonomics, and am keeping my Canon bodies for the time being to keep my EF and EF-S lenses going when I need to use them action-fast AF, but the A7R III is definitely giving me some usability benefits. Love the fact that all of my lenses, even my cheapo Rokinon 14mm 2.8 and EF-S 8mm fisheye, can now benefit from stabilization and focus peaking. 

I only have one Sony native lens so far, a 24-70 2.8 (also bought with the 10% off), but it works a treat. I did not have the Canon 24-70 2.8 (I had the Tamron 24-70 2.8 IS Mk 1) so that lens was my logical starting point. Not in any hurry to replace my glass; I'll be able to use my Canon lenses on the Sony for anything but action, as they seem to focus pretty quickly and accurately, if a little slow. 

Part of me still hopes Canon wakes up and creates an A7R III-competetive body soon, in which case my Sony will most likely be on used market, but as long Canon continues to dominate market share, I don't see them getting innovative in that way.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 4, 2017)

Innovative = copying another company?


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 4, 2017)

Patlezinc said:


> Sorry I did not read all the pages...
> 
> I am wondering too if I need to go to the new A7riii.
> Really temptated by the eye focus feature.
> ...



I disagree. Eye AF works best with fast primes, especially at f1.4. How do I know??? I use my a9 + FE50f1.4 everyday. 

Have you try Sony Eye _AF?


----------



## eoren1 (Dec 18, 2017)

*Well, I jumped...*

Thought I would circle back to this thread I started and let you know I decided to move to the Sony a7rIII and, with one in hand, can offer some thoughts.

I did a LOT of research and was fortunate to borrow an a7rII to try. With that done, I purchased the a7rIII, metabones V adapter and the Sony FE 85/1.8 from BHphoto. They arrived Friday at 5pm and I threw them in the house before taking a flight out of town. Returned home Sunday at 1am, charged battery and crashed. Today, I've been playing with menus and the camera.

Body:
For good and bad, it is smaller. I put my hand strap on it which made it instantly more comfortable and will buy the RRS L plate which adds to the bottom. The camera is quite comfortable to hold and handle in landscape/horizontal orientation. I do find the finger placement a bit awkward in portrait/verticle but am quickly getting used to it. Battery life has been solid. Body is very customizable which is great and a pleasant change from Canon's 5DmkIII that I had been using for about 4 years.
The body is lighter which doesn't seem important until I put the Canon 24-105 on via the Metabones adapter and went out for some test shots. Slung the camera over my neck/shoulder as I would the 5D and was pleasantly surprised at the lack of pressure over the clavicle area. It felt much lighter and less of something I was aware of carrying.

Autofocus
I have to say, the biggest surprise to me is EyeAF. I didn't know much about it before and started reading about as I researched the Sony. Still, I didn't get how powerful it was. Simply put, the camera finds your subject's eye and nails focus Every Single Time. That's good in and of itself but it also means that you no longer need to compose based on lining up a red square with your subject. You are now free to compose your shot however you like and essentially ignore the person/focus while knowing their eye will be nailed. Shot the kids tonight as we lit candles for Hanukkah and the results were awesome.

Lenses
The 85/1.8 is really nice and I will happily give up my Canon 100/2 for it. All of my Canon lenses work with the Sony (which is really amazing). Still haven't pushed any lenses to test autofocus speed as I'm trying to get used to the 85 for a better sense of native vs adapted lenses. I can see myself dumping the Canon 17-40/4, 24-105/4 and 70-200/4 for the Sony 12-24/4, 24-105/4 and 100-400 though.

Software
The menu system is LONG and needlessly confusing at times but makes the camera ridiculously customizable.

Files
Processing in LR Classic 7.1. The files actually look great on the Sony LCD screen and in LR before Adobe processes the preview files. Not sure what Adobe is doing but the files are much flatter than the Canon ones. They also have a ridiculous amount of leeway when it comes to pushing exposure and shadows. I read this before but it's very different to actually work with the files and see how easy they are to work with without 'falling apart' like the Canon ones are prone to do.

It's only been a day of use but I really am pleased with the Sony. This is their third iteration of the a7r series which feels like a mature product now (just like the Canon 5DmkIII did when I bought it). Between the improved sensor, customizability and eyeAF, it really is a marked improvement over the Canon I had and the ones on offer now.

I realize this is a Canon forum and I may get pummeled for this but thought it worth circling back and reporting my experience so far.


----------



## ecqns (Dec 18, 2017)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



eoren1 said:


> Software
> The menu system is LONG and needlessly confusing at times but makes the camera ridiculously customizable.
> 
> Files
> Processing in LR Classic 7.1. The files actually look great on the Sony LCD screen and in LR before Adobe processes the preview files. Not sure what Adobe is doing but the files are much flatter than the Canon ones. They also have a ridiculous amount of leeway when it comes to pushing exposure and shadows. I read this before but it's very different to actually work with the files and see how easy they are to work with without 'falling apart' like the Canon ones are prone to do.



Long time Sony user here - and Canon DSLR since forever before that - do yourself a favor and use Capture One for Sony. I use Photoshop all day for retouching but their raw file conversions are absolutely terrible. Just as the DR you are finding to be night and day compared to Canon - the raw conversion is like that between Capture One and Adobe.

Yes the menus are different, but one you learn them and make any customizations you almost never spend much time in them again.


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 18, 2017)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



eoren1 said:


> Thought I would circle back to this thread I started and let you know I decided to move to the Sony a7rIII and, with one in hand, can offer some thoughts.
> 
> I did a LOT of research and was fortunate to borrow an a7rII to try. With that done, I purchased the a7rIII, metabones V adapter and the Sony FE 85/1.8 from BHphoto. They arrived Friday at 5pm and I threw them in the house before taking a flight out of town. Returned home Sunday at 1am, charged battery and crashed. Today, I've been playing with menus and the camera.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the post. I've been interested in the a7r iii as well. I just watched a video recently of eye AF with canon lenses and the sigma adapter (I believe) and couldn't believe how quick and reliable it seemed to be, and it wasn't even well lit.

Although, I'm not referring to the a7r iii but instead the d810, which from my understanding have very similar dynamic range I was blown away. I was playing with the raw files from a friend who just purchased one, (switching from canon) and there was a shot that was very poorly exposed. Now, no one should realistically be screwing up a shot by 5 stops and the +100 shadows I pushed it in lighteroom, but it was so surprising how little noise and how usable the image was. I can't speak for the 5div, but I feel my 5d3/1dx wouldn't be able to compare with half the pushing i did to the d810 file. Although that isn't enough for me swap systems, it was a big surprise and I can understand why many seem to be making a big deal of the Dr of the Sony Nikon cameras.


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 18, 2017)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



ecqns said:


> eoren1 said:
> 
> 
> > Software
> ...



That has always been one concern I never understood about Sony. I so rarely go into the menu system of my cameras after setting them up. It sounds like the Sony may take a little bit longer and perhaps be a little more stressful or confusing, but after figuring it all out, there is little need to access more then your my menu.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2017)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



ecqns said:


> eoren1 said:
> 
> 
> > Software
> ...



Or take a few minutes to make custom presets in LR that match C1, it has been illustrated before that the difference between the two is not a capability difference but a factory preset difference. For instance C1 applies more sharpening at import compared to LR, but a simple move of the slider evens them out. Both programs are very capable, neither is dramatically 'better' at rendering RAW files and both have the ability to create custom import presets that negate any differences in factory rendering.

I have never liked Adobe presets for Canon cameras and have always made my own and consider them vastly superior, but I also accept that it is a personal preference and that pretty much any software can be adjusted to similar output. My personal presets include no import sharpening and always have custom color profiles included.

One thing I do like about LR is the ability to make import presets that are serial number and iso specific, I can shoot all day and night with my two 1DX MkII's and dump all the files in one folder, then on import LR will apply different presets to the file depending on what camera and iso that specific image was shot with and at, not of interest to many people but I don't know if it is an option available in C1.

For sure either program is more than capable and personal preference of workflow etc is a much bigger differentiator than any virtually imperceptible differences in RAW rendering when you actually look into their capabilities.


----------



## ecqns (Dec 18, 2017)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



privatebydesign said:


> ecqns said:
> 
> 
> > eoren1 said:
> ...



I figured we'd get a LR defender. I am not talking about sharpening. Color rendition is totally different. It would take much more than simply slider play to get something similar. Unless you are a color scientist (which I am not and I doubt many others are either) it is very difficult to match color in that way. I've had to do it for retouching jobs and its quite difficult and thats using a single image, not trying to make a profie. As I said before and eoren1 posted above, seeing the differences with your own eyes is hard to believe until you try both camera systems or both raw converters. Please try it sometime.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2017)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



Ryananthony said:


> I can't speak for the 5div, but I feel my 5d3/1dx wouldn't be able to compare with half the pushing i did to the d810 file. Although that isn't enough for me swap systems, it was a big surprise and I can understand why many seem to be making a big deal of the Dr of the Sony Nikon cameras.



The 5D MkIV and 1DX MkII are noticeably better in this regard than their predecessors.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2017)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



ecqns said:


> I figured we'd get a LR defender. I am not talking about sharpening. Color rendition is totally different. It would take much more than simply slider play to get something similar. Unless you are a color scientist (which I am not and I doubt many others are either) it is very difficult to match color in that way. I've had to do it for retouching jobs and its quite difficult and thats using a single image, not trying to make a profie. As I said before and eoren1 posted above, seeing the differences with your own eyes is hard to believe until you try both camera systems or both raw converters. Please try it sometime.



It's not about defending anything, it is about pointing out the truth that there is, effectively, no difference in the rendering side of the programs when you equalize the different parameters. One is not 'better' than the other, they are both capable of essentially identical output from presets that involve no user input past making the initial preset.

It doesn't matter why anyone prefers one program over the other, it could be the UI, because their cousin uses it etc etc, but to try to make a claim that the core rendering capabilities of the two programs are dramatically different is demonstrably false.

Why would you think for a second I haven't used C1?


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 18, 2017)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



eoren1 said:


> Thought I would circle back to this thread I started and let you know I decided to move to the Sony a7rIII and, with one in hand, can offer some thoughts.
> 
> I did a LOT of research and was fortunate to borrow an a7rII to try. With that done, I purchased the a7rIII, metabones V adapter and the Sony FE 85/1.8 from BHphoto. They arrived Friday at 5pm and I threw them in the house before taking a flight out of town. Returned home Sunday at 1am, charged battery and crashed. Today, I've been playing with menus and the camera.
> 
> ...



Congrats on your new toys.

Once you customize the playback and shooting menu, I doubt would go back to main menu. Stay with native lenses and here are the lenses I would highly recommend:

*Small and light weight combo:*
1. FE35 f2.8
2. FE55 f1.8
3. FE28 f2
4. FE85 f1.8


*Events + low light:*
1. 24-70 GM and 70-200 GM
2. FE35 f1.4 and FE85 GM


Have you try silent shooting yet?


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 18, 2017)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*

I'd agreed with Privatebydesign on this. Lightroom and Capture One are a muchness when it come to converting raw images. I don't think even Capture One would claim to be superior with Sony images.

Thanks for the updates on the Sony Camera. 
I have been tempted by an A9 with its high frame rate.
I think it encourages Canon to keep updating and will encourage them to go big into mirrorless.
I'm not sure the physical limit of a shutter in terms of FPS but Canon must be approaching it already.
I certainly don't mind hearing about Sony cameras. 
They are interesting. 
I'm quite happy with Canon but if the 7DIII isn't alot better than the 7DII I might look again at Sony or a 1DX model.




privatebydesign said:


> ecqns said:
> 
> 
> > I figured we'd get a LR defender. I am not talking about sharpening. Color rendition is totally different. It would take much more than simply slider play to get something similar. Unless you are a color scientist (which I am not and I doubt many others are either) it is very difficult to match color in that way. I've had to do it for retouching jobs and its quite difficult and thats using a single image, not trying to make a profie. As I said before and eoren1 posted above, seeing the differences with your own eyes is hard to believe until you try both camera systems or both raw converters. Please try it sometime.
> ...


----------



## Talys (Jan 6, 2018)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



eoren1 said:


> With that done, I purchased the a7rIII, metabones V adapter and the Sony FE 85/1.8 from BHphoto.



I'm curious: why did you select the metabones adapter? The Sony champion that I spoke to during the preview suggested the Sigma adapter as being as good/better and cheaper.


----------



## Zen (Jan 6, 2018)

Frankly, I'm happy you jumped, and I hope that everyone else who is contemplating doing it - DOES. Sell all your Canon gear at a loss, buy your new kit, and then STOP COMPLAINING about Canon! If you don't like Canon, just get out of it!

If you only knew how boring and unhelpful it is to read complaint after complaint after complint. Some of us are here to learn!

Zen ???


----------



## Phenix205 (Jan 6, 2018)

Changing gear is not going to upgrade your artistic eyes or understanding of image making. Spending hours comparing specs or sample images taken by others will only drive you nuts. If you have the money, sell what you don't like and buy what you want (not necessarily what you need). If money matters to you, try to use what you have and improve how you see the world through the lens.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 6, 2018)

Zen said:


> Frankly, I'm happy you jumped, and I hope that everyone else who is contemplating doing it - DOES. Sell all your Canon gear at a loss, buy your new kit, and then STOP COMPLAINING about Canon! If you don't like Canon, just get out of it!
> 
> If you only knew how boring and unhelpful it is to read complaint after complaint after complint. Some of us are here to learn!
> 
> Zen ???



I'm not really here to learn. But, I can identify with your sentiments. All this making much of insignificant differences gets quite tiresome.


----------



## jrvvn (Jan 9, 2018)

Hi,
I was hesitated in moving to Sony due to all the Canon lenses I own. I'm use to shoot wide and so far none reviews has been found on the internet about wide open lenses, e.g. 16-35mm or 17-40mm, with Metabones IV/V or MC-11. I believe this topic helped me a lot and has made the final decision for me.
If you have any experience of wide angle lenses with adapters, please share more. I would like to read more from you.

Thank you.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jan 9, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> Hi,
> I was hesitated in moving to Sony due to all the Canon lenses I own. I'm use to shoot wide and so far none reviews has been found on the internet about wide open lenses, e.g. 16-35mm or 17-40mm, with Metabones IV/V or MC-11. I believe this topic helped me a lot and has made the final decision for me.
> If you have any experience of wide open lenses with adapters, please share more. I would like to read more from you.
> 
> Thank you.



I'm using the a7r3 with mc-11 and 16-35 f4 alongside my 6d - wide open has been fine so far but there are two points to be aware of:
1. the higher mp means that motion blur is more readily noticed - the likelihood is really that this will be a practice and method issue for the most part in my case but it is noticed

2. The adapted auto focus isn't as reliable in low light, the camera does start hunting faster with lower light, whereas the center point on the 6d is generally pretty good. Native lenses were much better for this when I was borrowing a few at the start. 

Tracking speed on the Sony with an adapted 70-200 f4 L IS is significantly faster than the 6d, but is limited to 3fps. Again, native is far far better for this. For slower situations in semi decent light (i.e most landscapes, stationary wildlife), the sony and mc-11 has been good


----------



## jrvvn (Jan 9, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> jrvvn said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Many thanks for the reply.

Maybe Metabones performs better with Canon lenses than MC-11 ?

Anyone has experience with Metabones IV and V with wide angle lenses ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> Anyone has experience with Metabones IV and V with *wide open* lenses ?



It might help to clarify what you are asking. 'Wide open' in photography, typically means using any lens at its maximum aperture. For example, an 85mm f/1.2 used at f/1.2, or a 600mm f/4 used at f/4. 'Wide angle' generally refers to any lens wider than 35mm, or more specifically to lenses between 24-35 mm at their widest, and 'ultrawide angle' is a lens wider than 24mm. So, from the example lenses you listed above, it appears what you're asking is for input from people with experience using ultrawide zoom lenses with a newer Metabones adapter on an a7RIII body.


----------



## jrvvn (Jan 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrvvn said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone has experience with Metabones IV and V with *wide open* lenses ?
> ...



Oh my bad. I was thinking wide Angle and wrote Open.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jan 9, 2018)

Unless you want to change format - to medium format - stick with what you have and know. You might consider focusing on primes, a 24L, 85L and a 135L would be nice additions. The new 100-400 for the outdoor sports would be an outstanding choice. Added one at a time with a mastery interval would give you a new focus (no pun intended) and allow you to further your skills. Changing bodies, unless you upgrade in line and sometimes even then, always requires a learning/adaption curve (not to mention a financial burden).


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jan 18, 2018)

If you decide to go with Sony, I have a a whole department's worth of Sony computers that I can make you a hell of a deal on. Cameras are such a small part of Sony's corporate world, I don't have any confidence that they'll still be making them in five years. It wouldn't be the first time they've given up on a market.


----------



## Talys (Jan 18, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Tracking speed on the Sony with an adapted 70-200 f4 L IS is significantly faster than the 6d, but is limited to 3fps. Again, native is far far better for this. For slower situations in semi decent light (i.e most landscapes, stationary wildlife), the sony and mc-11 has been good



I did not know that. Are all adapted lenses limited to 3fps?


----------



## tron (Jan 18, 2018)

*Re: Well, I jumped...*



Hector1970 said:


> I'd agreed with Privatebydesign on this. Lightroom and Capture One are a muchness when it come to converting raw images. I don't think even Capture One would claim to be superior with Sony images.
> 
> Thanks for the updates on the Sony Camera.
> I have been tempted by an A9 with its high frame rate.
> ...


What do you mean "alot better"? The only thing that would make me upgrade my 7DII to 7DII would be a better sensor. Nothing else. But even this requires explaining.

7DII is a good camera. I am satisfied with the results with the exception that sometimes to get what I want (no obvious noise on unfocused areas) I may have to use two denoising programs. First I denoise it using one program and produce a different raw file (.dng) and then process it again as raw with anothe program. 5DsR saves me from this 2-step process at least up to iso 800 or 1000. So I would like a sensor that its pixels are at least as good as the pixels of 5DsR. Judging by current Canon advancements this can be easily achieved and in fact overpassed. So a 7DIII with a better sensor as defined above would make me upgrade. OK I would also welcome more f/8 focusing points (already made in other cameras) and the new touch screen focusing technology which is now a standard (since even 200D has it). These updates alone would make me update my 7DII with no hesitation. I find that 10fps is more than enough. And of course bigger (buffer) is always better.


----------



## snappy604 (Jan 18, 2018)

" STOP COMPLAINING about Canon! If you don't like Canon, just get out of it!"

- same advise could be said of reading a forum post which clearly identifies this topic and yet you still read it and took the time to post how it annoys you? Maybe just get out of posts with obvious subjects?

Venting about and asking for advise on something you have a large investment in (thousands if not tens of thouands of dollars) seems more valid to me. We each handle it differently and sometimes it helps to find out what options are out there.. we LEARN things from it.. such as, is it worth it? what are the alternatives? What challenges might you find jumping to a different technology? what advantages?

I stopped investing in Canon glass and went Sigma for example.. and rarely change out bodies. Can't afford to jump, but decided to also reduce spending with Canon until I see something that excites me. I had the funds prepped for the 6d MkII for a few years... read up on it, tested one, and decided I couldn't live with some of the features they decided to limit (the autofocus spread for me, I take low light action shots). There are a fair number of frustrated customers, but we each find different ways of processing it. Jumping to a different technology isn't simple when you have that much invested.

- edit - btw while I have reduced my purchases, I still hope.. hence watching the rumours


----------



## tron (Jan 18, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> " STOP COMPLAINING about Canon! If you don't like Canon, just get out of it!"
> 
> - same advise could be said of reading a forum post which clearly identifies this topic and yet you still read it and took the time to post how it annoys you? Maybe just get out of posts with obvious subjects?
> 
> ...


Maybe you should stop complaining too about 6DII and find a camera without the shortcomings you mentioned like 5DMkIV. Better low ISO DR, better low light performance, better AF spread. I do have 5D4 and I enjoy using it. And I got a grey market one so I didn't pay for the full price.


----------



## AdjustedInCamera (Jan 18, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> " STOP COMPLAINING about Canon! If you don't like Canon, just get out of it!"
> 
> - same advise could be said of reading a forum post which clearly identifies this topic and yet you still read it and took the time to post how it annoys you? Maybe just get out of posts with obvious subjects?
> 
> ...



+1

Also had saved up for 6DII and all the glass I was going to spend money on. My skills as a photographer wouldn't justify the expenditure, but it was just a hobby for me so I didn't need to justify the cost like that. What I couldn't justify was that level of investment in something that looked half-baked. 

Frankly would be happy to pay twice cost of 6DII for a 5DIV with tilty-flippy screen but Canon seems more likely now to release their own brand of toaster with a camera in it than that.

Personally believe Canon's issue is their marketing, they seem to spend too much time listening to 'professional' photographers, who know their stuff, but I don't believe represent a large potential market for cameras. I wonder if Nikon's recent seeming success with 850 is a sign that this market is finally being tapped.


----------



## snappy604 (Jan 19, 2018)

"Maybe you should stop complaining too about 6DII and find a camera without the shortcomings you mentioned like 5DMkIV. Better low ISO DR, better low light performance, better AF spread. I do have 5D4 and I enjoy using it. And I got a grey market one so I didn't pay for the full price. "


I used the 6DMkII as an example of understanding frustrations, but it wasn't the point of the reply. The main point is that it's easier to just igore a forum post that clearly states they're going to complain about canon, than to log in, get annoyed and post about how he's tired of this, but still does it. It's also easier to ignore a post than for a person to decide on whether to toss thousands or tens of thousands invested in a system. You want to be sure its not a case of the grass looks greener so you want advice and it's a valid thing to question.

I've wanted to move to full frame for quite a while, originally wanted 5d MkIV, but price was quiet a bit higher than I anticipated and the features while solid, didn't seem enough (to me) to justify the cost (I don't earn money from it). I lowered my sights/expectations and hoped for decent 6dMkII, but it seemed to underwhelm me. I know this is subjective, but I'm not alone in it.. and the massive early discounts on the 6dMkII seems to support it was more than just myself.


----------



## tron (Jan 19, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> "Maybe you should stop complaining too about 6DII and find a camera without the shortcomings you mentioned like 5DMkIV. Better low ISO DR, better low light performance, better AF spread. I do have 5D4 and I enjoy using it. And I got a grey market one so I didn't pay for the full price. "
> 
> 
> I used the 6DMkII as an example of understanding frustrations, but it wasn't the point of the reply. The main point is that it's easier to just igore a forum post that clearly states they're going to complain about canon, than to log in, get annoyed and post about how he's tired of this, but still does it. It's also easier to ignore a post than for a person to decide on whether to toss thousands or tens of thousands invested in a system. You want to be sure its not a case of the grass looks greener so you want advice and it's a valid thing to question.
> ...


I don't earn money and I do not take pictures all of the time. But I have enjoyed my 5D4 very much for low light prhotography (like the inside of museums and churches in Florence and shooting my niece dancing event). As I said also I did not pay the full price.


----------



## slclick (Jan 19, 2018)

I need a Venn Diagram for people who say 'Paying Retail is for Suckers' and different models of camera bodies


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2018)

When the 7D2 came out, there were a whole bunch of features that I wanted that were missing. I bought it anyway and was happy.

When the 6D2 came out, there were features that I wanted that were missing.... I bought it anyway and was happy.

The limiting factor in my photography is me. I am not competent enough to truly stretch the abilities of my cameras to thier limits. Plus, since I have been into digital cameras since the Quicktake 100, I can state that beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no camera out there that is a superior camera for everyone. We all have our differing needs and decisions, so we make different choices.

"If I don't get what I want, then I will stop playing" is something most children outgrow by age 10. At some point, we grow up and learn that the world does not revolve around us. Calling others names because thay made a different decision is equally immature.

My best "photography friends" shoot Canon, shoot Nikon, shoot Sony, shoot Olympus, and (GASP!) iPhone!!!!! They all do great. None of them are limited by thier gear, but by limitations in time, practice, and learning. They all enjoy thier craft and produce amazing images. One is into landscapes, one is into buildings, one is into birding, one is into nature photography, and the iPhone photographer can best be described as an artist who creates amazing images that you would never believe comes from a phone.... I would not loose one of them over something as stupid and trivial as gear choice.

As to the basic premise of this thread.... Been with Canon for 12 years - wait or jump ship? The true value of your gear is in the lenses. Do you wish to toss them aside or do you wish to use them on the next body? What type of photography do you do? What are you strengths and weaknesses? What are your preferences? Which camera best meets your needs? Should you wait a bit longer? This is something that only you can answer, but you will stirr up lots of responses from fanatics on all sides.

My advice to you is that cameras will always be better (with all manufacturers) if you wait, but future cameras do you no good if you want to shoot now. Find and join a camera club and talk to people that have similar cameras to what you are thinking of. Hopefully you can get to play with them and see how YOU like them. Be open minded.... perhaps you will find that some choice that you never even thought of pushes all your buttons.... and when someone says Canon is C**P! or Sony S**KS!, it is safe to ignore them as they probably do not hold a balanced viewpoint.

Seriously! Go find a camera club!


----------



## slclick (Jan 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> When the 7D2 came out, there were a whole bunch of features that I wanted that were missing. I bought it anyway and was happy.
> 
> When the 6D2 came out, there were features that I wanted that were missing.... I bought it anyway and was happy.
> 
> ...



I nominate this for Best Post in January 2018.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> When the 7D2 came out, there were a whole bunch of features that I wanted that were missing. I bought it anyway and was happy.
> 
> When the 6D2 came out, there were features that I wanted that were missing.... I bought it anyway and was happy.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## Isaacheus (Jan 19, 2018)

Talys said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Tracking speed on the Sony with an adapted 70-200 f4 L IS is significantly faster than the 6d, but is limited to 3fps. Again, native is far far better for this. For slower situations in semi decent light (i.e most landscapes, stationary wildlife), the sony and mc-11 has been good
> ...



I haven't tried that many lenses sorry - it'll fire away at top speed with all the lenses so far but only reliably tracks at 3fps. 8 fps is great if the subject is stationary but you're wanting to catch the exact moment, not so great for flying birds and such


----------



## Talys (Jan 19, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Isaacheus said:
> ...



Ahh, I see. Thank you for explaining!


----------



## eoren1 (Jan 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> As to the basic premise of this thread.... Been with Canon for 12 years - wait or jump ship? The true value of your gear is in the lenses. Do you wish to toss them aside or do you wish to use them on the next body? What type of photography do you do? What are you strengths and weaknesses? What are your preferences? Which camera best meets your needs? Should you wait a bit longer? This is something that only you can answer, but you will stirr up lots of responses from fanatics on all sides.



Hi Don,

I edited your post here to focus on the original post (mine). I do agree with your premise that most cameras today are excellent and that photographers should only switch when they find a limitation in their equipment.

As for me, I was nearing the ‘wall’ of the 5DmkIII. Had been printing larger and feeling some limitations in the sensor. Also was missing shots of my son playing indoor basketball using the 100/2.

I had just been considering a change in my Canon lenses to include the 100-400 II when the a7riii was announced and got me to rethink the body.

I ended up buying the Sony a7rIII and just sold my last Canon lens. My lenses had taken me as far as I could go and, if I ever return to the Canon system, would likely look at different ones for more creative options and reach. Thankfully, the Canon over 4 years has paid for itself many times over with print and book sales so I had the opportunity to switch systems.

As for the Sony system, I really love it. The Eye AF system is amazing. Completely changes portrait compositions. I have shot my kids on the fly (including walking backwards with camera at hip level) and nailed focus and shots the Canon would never have gotten me. I can hold one button and know the camera will grab focus on the nearest eye (or even on a face I registered if in a crowd like indoor basketball). I am then free to compose the shot without lining up the face with a designated focus point like on the 5D. The 8 FPS has gotten me shots of my son playing basketball that the Canon hadn’t.

The sensor is improved markedly at iso 100-400 and matches the 5D at higher ISOs while doubling the megapixels. 

I did change over to Sony lenses and used the opportunity to get their 100-400 which opens up a lot of new options. Their 85/1.8 seems to be a marked improvement over the Canon 100/2 I had before and the 35/2.8 is at least equal to the 35/2 while being ridiculously light and small to make the camera almost point and shoot size.

Carrying the camera over a shoulder feels much better than the equivalent Canon.

It may not be the right choice for everyone but I am very happy to have ‘jumped ship’. That being said, looks like Canon may have a big mirrorless announcement coming up and I’m very curious about what they bring out.

Not a fanboy in either camp - just happy the equipment allows me to realize shots and doesn’t hold me back.


----------



## tron (Jan 19, 2018)

eoren1 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As to the basic premise of this thread.... Been with Canon for 12 years - wait or jump ship? The true value of your gear is in the lenses. Do you wish to toss them aside or do you wish to use them on the next body? What type of photography do you do? What are you strengths and weaknesses? What are your preferences? Which camera best meets your needs? Should you wait a bit longer? This is something that only you can answer, but you will stirr up lots of responses from fanatics on all sides.
> ...


Glad you are satisfied but some points:

1) 2.8 is not 2.0: This is an apples to oranges comparison. So another comparison could be with the very light 40mm 2.8 instead of the 35 2.0. Still apples to oranges but much less so. In that case the combos size and weight are close. However, I would still prefer the 35 2.0 IS...

2) 5D4 is much improved at lower ISOs and the difference in Mpixels is not night and day.

3) Sony 85 1.8 is more expensive than Canon's equivalent. It has to be better!

Having said these, contrary to many who just want to complain, your reaction (to switch systems) is both acceptable and healthy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2018)

tron said:


> Having said, contrary to many who just want to complain, your reaction (to switch systems) is both acceptable and healthy.



It's exactly the right thing to do – if your current gear isn't meeting your needs, change it!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2018)

eoren1 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As to the basic premise of this thread.... Been with Canon for 12 years - wait or jump ship? The true value of your gear is in the lenses. Do you wish to toss them aside or do you wish to use them on the next body? What type of photography do you do? What are you strengths and weaknesses? What are your preferences? Which camera best meets your needs? Should you wait a bit longer? This is something that only you can answer, but you will stirr up lots of responses from fanatics on all sides.
> ...



Sounds like a good choice to me  The only thing that surprised me was you getting rid of the lenses.... but then again, Sony has started to put out some very interesting glass, plus Sigma ART lenses and Tamron G2 lenses are now approaching (and in some cases exceeding) L glass.... there are some good choices out there!

Personally, I have always regarded cameras as tools and between home and work, have my feet firmly planted in three camps.... I have always tried to let the task decide what gear was needed, not let the gear decide the task.... At home I get to play more, but even there what I would really like is a Canon-Olympus frankencamera...


----------



## eoren1 (Jan 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Sounds like a good choice to me  The only thing that surprised me was you getting rid of the lenses.... but then again, Sony has started to put out some very interesting glass, plus Sigma ART lenses and Tamron G2 lenses are now approaching (and in some cases exceeding) L glass.... there are some good choices out there!
> 
> Personally, I have always regarded cameras as tools and between home and work, have my feet firmly planted in three camps.... I have always tried to let the task decide what gear was needed, not let the gear decide the task.... At home I get to play more, but even there what I would really like is a Canon-Olympus frankencamera...



I sold the 70-200/4 IS (But would get the 100-400 instead), 24-105/4 mk I (would get mk II if return), 17-40/4 (either 16-35/4 or 2.8 if return), 100/2 (good but not great lens, likely get 135 in future). I still haven’t sold the 35/2 IS - seriously love that lens. Adapters don’t work as well as hyped or would get one just for that lens. The Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 has nice sharpness and bokeh even though slower and is ridiculously light for a non-pancake lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The limiting factor in my photography is me. I am not competent enough to truly stretch the abilities of my cameras to thier limits.



+1. This. All day. I'm still shooting my 5D3 for that reason.

- A


----------



## NancyP (Jan 19, 2018)

I can't say that I feel the limitations seriously from my 6D and 7D2 combo, which together handle the situations in which I shoot. I could wish for more dynamic resolution. Right now, my interest is in lenses. If you like the lenses available, that can be sufficient reason not to switch.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 19, 2018)

NancyP said:


> I can't say that I feel the limitations seriously from my 6D and 7D2 combo, which together handle the situations in which I shoot. I could wish for more dynamic resolution.



This is why there isn't a good rebuttal to those that are butt hurt about the 6D2 sensor not getting the on-chip ADC hotness the 1DX2, 5D4 and 80D did (M5, M6 as well?). They have a fair beef there.

I say that because dynamic range is a place people run into limits all the time. In that sense, this is one specific area where someone's skill _might actually be limited by the camera_.

Now, we can surely debate the value of (say) 1-2 added stops of base ISO DR will do for most of us vs. the jarring [financial / lens quality / new ergonomics and controls / system reliability] reality of leaving the fold to get it. But why Canon left this tech out of the 6D2 remains a head-scratcher to me.

- A


----------



## tron (Jan 19, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say that I feel the limitations seriously from my 6D and 7D2 combo, which together handle the situations in which I shoot. I could wish for more dynamic resolution.
> ...


 I haven't though a lot because I got a 5D4. Maybe they wanted to differentiate. But I agree with you even more since Canon are supposed to use the best sensor technology available at the moment for every camera model. I believe eventually every model's sensor will get the on-chip ADC. The same way they start using the touch screen and the DP technology in all new models...


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 19, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say that I feel the limitations seriously from my 6D and 7D2 combo, which together handle the situations in which I shoot. I could wish for more dynamic resolution.
> ...



Yes.... I am one of those butt-hurt people who wanted better low ISO performance out of the 6D2.... but I got one anyway because it works great at high ISO and the AF system is far superior to the 6D (I have one at work). On the plus side, the touch screen implementation is good and the WiFi interface is OK (could be better, could be worse).... and the camera REALLY!!! works well in poor light.

The 6D2 could really use more DR. Four more stops and I would be happy  . I have had to do a fair number of images with 3 shots, one -3 stops, one 0 stops, and the other +3 stops, and process later.....


----------



## stevelee (Jan 19, 2018)

I'm not getting out and shooting very much in this cold (for us) weather. I did post some shots of cardinals in a snowy tree in the bird portrait thread, but I took them through a window rather than going out on the deck and having the birds fly away.

But when the weather gets nicer, I want to take my 6D2 out and try some things other than just shooting what I think are interesting pictures. In particular, since it seems such an obsession in these parts, I want to shoot some pictures at ISO 100 to see how awful they are. I don't think anything I have shot so far got below ISO 200.

So what sort of picture do you recommend I try to demonstrate the problem? I assume it would need to be outside, or at least inside with windows in view. For normal indoor pictures I don't feel the need to underexpose and then raise the level to see all the cobwebs in the corners. But is that the sort of thing folks have in mind?

In more extreme circumstances I will make some bracketed exposures. For example, in a dark cathedral I want architectural detail but not wash out the colors of stained glass windows. So I do a shot for the room and one for the windows. Are there really cameras with that much dynamic range? Just one more stop won't even come close.

But what is a real-life situation where one more stop of latitude would show a noticeable difference in highlight detail over just pulling the "highlights" slider a bit to the left, for example?

My question is a serious one, even if my tone is a bit snarky and conveys some of my skepticism. It might be of value for me to experience the limitations of my camera. My previous DSLR is a T3i, so the 6D2 seems like a great leap forward to me. I'm unlikely ever to consider something in the 5DIV range in terms of price. I'm much more likely to invest in a greater range of glass than get a new body over the next 5 years or so, if I live and am able to continue to shoot that long. So does anybody have a suggestion as to how I can demonstrate the problem to myself?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The 6D2 could really use more DR. Four more stops and I would be happy  . I have had to do a fair number of images with 3 shots, one -3 stops, one 0 stops, and the other +3 stops, and process later.....



Really ? If you have to bracket 3 stops either side I can see why you didn't bother with a camera that has a little more DR !


----------



## stevelee (Jan 20, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D2 could really use more DR. Four more stops and I would be happy  . I have had to do a fair number of images with 3 shots, one -3 stops, one 0 stops, and the other +3 stops, and process later.....
> ...



Wow! You use cameras with over 15 stops of DR?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I'm not getting out and shooting very much in this cold (for us) weather. I did post some shots of cardinals in a snowy tree in the bird portrait thread, but I took them through a window rather than going out on the deck and having the birds fly away.
> 
> But when the weather gets nicer, I want to take my 6D2 out and try some things other than just shooting what I think are interesting pictures. In particular, since it seems such an obsession in these parts, I want to shoot some pictures at ISO 100 to see how awful they are. I don't think anything I have shot so far got below ISO 200.
> 
> ...


Here is a classic example.... you want to get detail in the clouds, but at the same time you want to get detail in the shadows... You need more DR than the camera is capable of so its off to play with HDR. A better sensor would help, but it still wouldn't be the answer to the problem.

3 shots, at 1/30, 1/125, and 1/500..... and a lightroom HDR merge.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 20, 2018)

I'd disagree, a three shot bracket with two stop spread can be covered very often with an optimally exposed single RAW file, heck even your tiny middle exposure jpeg has enough detail to nearly equal the HDR.

I am not saying there is no point to more DR, or HDR techniques, I am saying very often the camera is not as limiting as we have been led to believe.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 20, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I'm not getting out and shooting very much in this cold (for us) weather. I did post some shots of cardinals in a snowy tree in the bird portrait thread, but I took them through a window rather than going out on the deck and having the birds fly away.
> 
> But when the weather gets nicer, I want to take my 6D2 out and try some things other than just shooting what I think are interesting pictures. In particular, since it seems such an obsession in these parts, I want to shoot some pictures at ISO 100 to see how awful they are. I don't think anything I have shot so far got below ISO 200.
> 
> ...



Here is the simple truth (as I see it). Don't waste your time looking for the "problems" that the camera has. The camera has no problems. The problem is that many folks on internet forums have no idea what photography is all about and believe that test shots, internet review sites and under or over exposing shots by 3 to 5 stops tells you something about the camera. They do not. I have been doing photography for almost 40 years and I can be quite sure that I have never underexposed a *real shot* by 3 or more stops. 

You will no doubt take great shots with your 6D II (I owned the 6D and almost traded it in for the Sony A7 II because I, too was swayed by internet forum opinion. After taking shots side-by-side, the Sony was returned as it did nothing better - and a few things worse (such as color) than the supposedly awful 6D). Any shots that would need more DR would almost certainly need more DR with every camera ever made.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I am not saying there is no point to more DR, or HDR techniques, I am saying very often the camera is not as limiting as we have been led to believe.



Absolutely correct in my experience.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd disagree, a three shot bracket with two stop spread can be covered very often with an optimally exposed single RAW file, heck even your tiny middle exposure jpeg has enough detail to nearly equal the HDR.
> 
> I am not saying there is no point to more DR, or HDR techniques, I am saying very often the camera is not as limiting as we have been led to believe.



The skies and clouds are much nicer in the HDR version, but this does show that the differences in having one or two stops more DR are subtle, not the OMG! differences that some would have us believe.... And yes, proper editing can eat up a lot of that difference.

I keep hearing “weblogic” as to how the 6D2 is vastly inferior to the 6D.... I have the 6D at work and the 6D2 at home. The Af system of the 6D2 is far superior, plus it works better in poor light and high ISO. The 6D is marginally better at very low ISO. Then we have WiFi, touchscreen, and although I can’t prove it, it just seems faster....

And this is the worst FF camera in the Canon lineup! It is a fine camera, and a save bet that everything coming will be even better! And yes, I agree with the above comments, if you can’t get decent results from this camera ( actually ANY modern DSLR), then the problem is the camera holder.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd disagree, a three shot bracket with two stop spread can be covered very often with an optimally exposed single RAW file, heck even your tiny middle exposure jpeg has enough detail to nearly equal the HDR.
> ...



I agree my reworked jpeg is not as nice as the native HDR, but my example was just from that tiny jpeg. With the original middle exposure RAW file the result would be much better.

There is nothing wrong with the gradation of highlights in this 2 stop pull comparison when the RAW file is used (below).

Now when I do have real DR limitations that can't be dragged from a single image I am typically bracketing 7 shots 1 1/3 apart to cover interior and exterior scenes at the same time.


----------



## eoren1 (Jan 20, 2018)

Here is the shot I referenced earlier. Shot with the a7rIII and 100-400 lens. Exposed for the fire to not blow out the detail in the flames. Pushed by 1 stop for exposure and 50 on Shadows while holding highlights down a bit. There is no color noise in the final image - the snow is reflecting the color of the fire.

ISO 400 - f/5.6 - 1/160 at 181mm






RAW:


----------



## stevelee (Jan 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The skies and clouds are much nicer in the HDR version, but this does show that the differences in having one or two stops more DR are subtle, not the OMG! differences that some would have us believe.... And yes, proper editing can eat up a lot of that difference.
> 
> I keep hearing “weblogic” as to how the 6D2 is vastly inferior to the 6D.... I have the 6D at work and the 6D2 at home. The Af system of the 6D2 is far superior, plus it works better in poor light and high ISO. The 6D is marginally better at very low ISO. Then we have WiFi, touchscreen, and although I can’t prove it, it just seems faster....
> 
> And this is the worst FF camera in the Canon lineup! It is a fine camera, and a safe bet that everything coming will be even better! And yes, I agree with the above comments, if you can’t get decent results from this camera (actually ANY modern DSLR), then the problem is the camera holder.



For my tastes, too much detail in the clouds comes off as looking ominous. Sometimes I want ominous, but usually not. I always shoot RAW except with my iPhone. (I've even tried software that lets you get RAW iPhone files, but have found that not worth the trouble.) If I want more detail in the sky, I find moving the highlights slider a little to the left does the trick almost all the time. For fun I will sometimes hit the Auto button in ACR (Lightroom the same?) and the see the often cartoonish effect: whites way to the right and highlights way to the left plus more saturation and a lot of vibrance. Even with a single exposure it is often possible to get a bad HDR effect. I will use HDR for more extreme situations, usually with just ±1 1/3 stop bracketing, such as with a lovely sky at sunset and backlit scenery. I did this with the outdoors and indoors of the Air Force Academy chapel, and in retrospect, I think it looks too phony even though it does what I was aiming for:






The 6D2 is the first FF DSLR I've used, so I am awed by the speed and accuracy of its autofocus. The 24-105mm STM lens works especially well with it, as I guess it should. I have not regretted getting it instead of the L version, so far at least, and have used the lens much more than I thought I would. I don't have a prime wider than 50mm, and my only other option in the 75-105mm range is the much inferior 75-300mm. The latter lens does seem to work well with the autofocus, too. So far I have not had the need to focus on something in the extreme corner of the picture, so even the size of the focus point area has not been a problem. I suspect this may be an area that is griped about far more than it is needed in real use. For manual focusing, I've not got used to the feel of not being connected mechanically with the lens elements, but the results are not a problem.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 20, 2018)

eoren1 said:


> Here is the shot I referenced earlier. Shot with the a7rIII and 100-400 lens. Exposed for the fire to not blow out the detail in the flames. Pushed by 1 stop for exposure and 50 on Shadows while holding highlights down a bit. There is no color noise in the final image - the snow is reflecting the color of the fire.
> 
> ISO 400 - f/5.6 - 1/160 at 181mm
> 
> ...



m'eh


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 20, 2018)

I am not running into DR issues even in extremely contrasty light in 'regular' scenes, see below. This is the kind of scene where previous generations of camera might have had the subject too dark.

The only time I run into DR limitations is when I have a scene with different elements illuminated by very different levels of light, inside a building and I want to show the scene outside, stage lighting of the performer and the dimmed orchestra pit, for scenes without these dramatic contrasts I find the latest models of camera easily able to deliver.


----------



## peters (Jan 21, 2018)

If I read your Original Posting:
Why don't you go for the 5d IV? Its the perfect fit for the things you miss in the 5d III? (higher DR, higher Resolution, faster AF...)
The only thing I don't like about the 5d IV is the crop in 4k. But thats it.

I was in the same situation like you, I REALY felt somehow let down from canon with the 1dx II. It got so many shortcomings that I just don't understand, and that are totaly unecessary for videographers. The 5d IV is pretty much perfect (only the crop in 4k). Especialy the DPAF of the 1dxii and 5dIV is nothing but great.
The Sony a7r3 REALY looks perfect on paper. It probably is a great camera and made me realy think "I want this".

But why exactly? What exactly do I think I can achieve (or can achieve faster or easier) with this camera?
I did not found anything.
Also I will absolutely NOT adapt lenses. So I would have to sell everything. For my work I need 2 bodies and at least 4 lenses - so I would have to sell and invest 15.000+... thats to much to test out a new system, only to find out, that my photography and videography does not change after that. 

The grass is always greener on the other side.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 21, 2018)

peters said:


> If I read your Original Posting:
> Why don't you go for the 5d IV? Its the perfect fit for the things you miss in the 5d III? (higher DR, higher Resolution, faster AF...)




For those joining the thread late - the OP has aready bought the Sony....The OP has already bought the Sony...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 21, 2018)

dak723 said:


> peters said:
> 
> 
> > If I read your Original Posting:
> ...



So what?


----------



## RGF (Jan 21, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > peters said:
> ...



i bought a Sony and then sold it. Could not figure out how to make the body work for me


----------



## sama (Jan 24, 2018)

Photographer David Burnett Switches to Sony After 40 Years of Canon. 

https://petapixel.com/2018/01/23/photographer-david-burnett-switches-sony-40-years-shooting-canon/


----------



## sebasan (Jan 24, 2018)

I have not being following this thread because it was initiated by a troll, but Arthur Morris change Canon for Nikon, maybe it was mentioned before, but it is a great shock for me.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 24, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I am not running into DR issues even in extremely contrasty light in 'regular' scenes, see below. This is the kind of scene where previous generations of camera might have had the subject too dark.
> 
> The only time I run into DR limitations is when I have a scene with different elements illuminated by very different levels of light, inside a building and I want to show the scene outside, stage lighting of the performer and the dimmed orchestra pit, for scenes without these dramatic contrasts I find the latest models of camera easily able to deliver.



Very nice photo, and a great example of what you are talking about. Very nice!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 24, 2018)

sama said:


> Photographer David Burnett Switches to Sony After 40 Years of Canon.
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2018/01/23/photographer-david-burnett-switches-sony-40-years-shooting-canon/



So what? Obama's photographer, Pete Souza, 'swapped' to Sony, for a while, he didn't get on with them despite the several clear advantages (WYSIWYG and fully silent capture), he switched back to Canon and still uses Canon.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 24, 2018)

In other news, I quit buying Oldsmobiles. Over the years I have owned five.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

stevelee said:


> In other news, I quit buying Oldsmobiles. Over the years I have owned five.



It was the dynamic range that drove you to switch, wasn't it?


----------



## ethanz (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > In other news, I quit buying Oldsmobiles. Over the years I have owned five.
> ...



Probably got a range of 350 miles per tank instead of 375 of something else


----------



## Zen (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > In other news, I quit buying Oldsmobiles. Over the years I have owned five.
> ...



I switched to DeSoto 'cuz the dash mounted PRNDL worked better!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 24, 2018)

By now this ship has sailed. Any pictures of photographers jumping overboard?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Any pictures of photographers jumping overboard?



Loads, all done effortlessly with a Canon. :


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Any pictures of photographers jumping overboard?
> ...



I don't see any cameras in their hands, so how do we know they are photographers?

Jack


----------



## eoren1 (Jan 25, 2018)

sebasan said:


> I have not being following this thread because it was initiated by a troll, but Arthur Morris change Canon for Nikon, maybe it was mentioned before, but it is a great shock for me.



Seriously?!?!

I started this thread asking a legitimate question. I had hoped that others might have thoughts on Sony bodies having come from Canon ones.

I did receive some great advice and ended up deciding that the Sony a7rIII offered advantages my Canon 5DmkIII did not have and am happy to have switched. I have come back to this thread periodically to update on my findings with the Sony to help anyone else in the same boat.

I'm surprised this thread has gone to 15 pages now and hope it has been helpful for anyone else on the fence - either to stay or go. I do not own stock in either company so have no stake in other photographer's choices either way.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jan 25, 2018)

eoren1 said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > I have not being following this thread because it was initiated by a troll, but Arthur Morris change Canon for Nikon, maybe it was mentioned before, but it is a great shock for me.
> ...



Now you have been using the Sony A7 r3 for a while I would be interested to hear what you think of it. How does it compare with the Canon 5D mark 3? In particular, which features are an improvement on the Canon and is there anything you miss that was better on the 5D mk3?


----------



## eoren1 (Jan 25, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Now you have been using the Sony A7 r3 for a while I would be interested to hear what you think of it. How does it compare with the Canon 5D mark 3? In particular, which features are an improvement on the Canon and is there anything you miss that was better on the 5D mk3?



Hey Ian,

Honestly, I am really pleased with the a7rIII
1. Ergonomics - it is smaller in hand but, especially after adding the RRS L bracket, I have found it very comfortable. Without the bracket, your pinkie finger dangles under the camera. The bracket offers just enough thickness to offset that.

2. Features that MkIII does not have
-Eye AF - seriously amazing tech - especially with native lenses though my Canon 35/2 IS works great via Metabones V adapter. I have a button dedicated to Eye AF (like back button focus on the 5DMkIII) and am free to compose shots better without having to line up an eye with a specific focus point or do a focus/recompose. Also, you can shoot a face and register it ahead of time. I've done this with my 12 year old playing indoor basketball and the camera is able to pick him out of the crowd 8-9 times out of 10.
- FPS - technically the camera does 10fps but then you get blackouts. I use 'high' at 8fps and have had FAR more keepers in basketball than with the 5D
- Articulated screen - nice to have
- Video with focusing - impressive. Can set pull focus speed to fast/normal/slow. Also can push on touchscreen lcd in back to set a focus point
- DR - I know this gets talked about a lot but I can push files far more from this camera than the Canon in real world situations
- Battery life - Apparently the a7rII was terrrible but the III easily matches the Canon in real use
- Customization - almost too many options as evidenced by the menu system but once you go through it carefully, it really does have so many improvements in allowing photographers to truly customize the camera for their style of shooting

3. Missing from 5D...
- The two things I have not gotten used to are switching lenses - they go on/off in same direction but button to release is near hand grip rather than Canon location. Also zooms rotate opposite of Canon
- Apparently Sony's have less weather sealing than the 5D but can't comment on that
- No top LCD like on Canon nor the dedicated button for WB but, as above, can customize any button for that (just not the same without the label)
- Damn camera doesn't have a 'soft' off mode that I can find. Turns on fast enough but leaving on, the back LCD is constantly ON. Seems dumb.

4. Lenses - the Sony 24-105 seems better than my Canon 24-105mk I and the Sony 100-400 is excellent as is their 85/1.8. I was not happy with the copy of the 16-35/4 and am considering using my Canon 17-40 with the Metabones adapter. Going to test that against a replacement 16-35. 
No equivalent for the Canon 35/2 - I bought the 35/2.8 which is crazy small/light but a full stop slower and crazy expensive (it's going back to BH). The 35/1.4s are plentiful but too big/heavy for my taste. Going to keep the Canon on metabones until Sigma or someone else puts out a nice 35/2
Sony is missing long primes but I don't shoot those

Hope that helps.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2018)

Thanks for posting your observations.

Jack


----------



## ecqns (Jan 29, 2018)

eoren1 said:


> - DR - I know this gets talked about a lot but I can push files far more from this camera than the Canon in real world situations
> - Battery life - Apparently the a7rII was terrrible but the III easily matches the Canon in real use
> - Customization - almost too many options as evidenced by the menu system but once you go through it carefully, it really does have so many improvements in allowing photographers to truly customize the camera for their style of shooting
> 
> ...



A couple of things I would comment on as someone who used Canon for years then a a7r, and now I have both the a7r2 and a7r3.

The new battery is great, I shot all day and was at about 40% mostly screen on and tethered. I didn't really mind the smaller a7r2 batteries, I just would take a few with me but I don't know if I need all of the extra batteries for the a7r3. The new battery is about the size as a 5D battery.

I have the Sony cameras set to switch to viewfinder and rear LCD depending if I bring it to my face or not. You can turn off the rear LCD in the display button settings. I have it set to toggle from all settings, shutter/aperture only, level and then display off. 

There are 4 open customizable buttons so you can find a place for WB or map any of the other dedicated buttons to whatever is more convenient for you.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jan 29, 2018)

eoren1 said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > Now you have been using the Sony A7 r3 for a while I would be interested to hear what you think of it. How does it compare with the Canon 5D mark 3? In particular, which features are an improvement on the Canon and is there anything you miss that was better on the 5D mk3?
> ...



Thank you - I found your summary very helpful indeed. Not sure that I am ready to jump ship just yet, but it is certainly food for thought.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 29, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> eoren1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ian_of_glos said:
> ...



It would be nice to see some actual "real world" samples of that. I just don't believe that to be the case nowadays.

Or, more relevantly, why not compare the 5D MkIV to the A7RIII?


----------



## tron (Jan 29, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > eoren1 said:
> ...


+1 I was about to mention 5DMkIV. Plus, I cannot understand how the advantages of 5D are mentioned in a negative way as "3. "Missing from 5D..." It should say either Missing from Sony (they are not missing from 5D obviously) or 5D advantages...


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 29, 2018)

tron said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ian_of_glos said:
> ...



He was asked " is there anything you miss that was better on the 5D mk3?" he listed things he missed from the 5d3. The question wasn't about a 5d4.

I owned a 5d3 and just sold it, with the intentions of purchasing an a7riii, so this is at the least relative to me.


----------



## jrvvn (Jan 30, 2018)

Hi all,

I would like to update you all about my experience.

Sony A7R III v1.01 + Metabones V v0.57 + :

*Canon 35 F2* - AF amazingly accurate and fast. Nothing more to tell, simply great.

*Canon 16-35 F4* - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.

Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.

Anybody else experienced the same result ?

I'm getting depressed ...


----------



## Isaacheus (Jan 30, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I would like to update you all about my experience.
> 
> ...



Have you tried the mc-11? I've got the 16-35mm f4 on that, it's not super in low light but if you can give it some contrast, it seems to be decent overall. Having said that, I wouldn't rate a cameras af purely on how it can handle adapted lenses, that seems a bit unfair as a whole. 

I do tend to use a tripod and manual focusing for landscape in low light myself, as I've never found any cameras (6d, 5dmk3 etc) to be fantastic focusing in low light shadows


----------



## jrvvn (Jan 30, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> jrvvn said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...



No no, it has nothing to do with A7R III nor with Canon 16-35. Simply the combination does not work with Metabones V.
The simple fact with my Canon 35mm F2 it worked so well I was expecting more from Canon 16-35 (since this last is my main lens).
I sold my 6D for A7R III, you have to admit, even though 6D has old technology the middle focusing point is amazing in low light (almost dark/no light), fast and accurate.

Kind disappointed with my investment. That's it.
I never expected to be mega fast as with native lenses but I did expect to focus. The currect situation is ...my Canon 16-35 cannot even focus 

Not tried with MC-11 but I heard somewhere that Eye Focus does not work with it. True/False ?

By the way, I wrote to Metabones about this matter, hope they can reply me soon.


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2018)

In the meantime my 16-35 lenses (4 IS and 2.8 III) work fine with my 5D4


----------



## ecqns (Jan 30, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> By the way, I wrote to Metabones about this matter, hope they can reply me soon.



That's odd - I've not heard of a Canon/Sonya7r2 or 3/Metabones issue like that. I shoot mostly manual focus lenses but the 2 AF ones I use, the 40mm and the Sigma 100-400 focus really fast and accurate. I was impressed by the new a7r3 AF, and I thought the a7r2 was fast coming from the original. I would send the Metabones in to get checked out.


----------



## eoren1 (Jan 30, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I would like to update you all about my experience.
> 
> ...



Found the same with the 35/2 IS and really happy as I love that lens

17-40/4 hunted a bit at 17mm on static objects - got the Sony 16-35/4

24-105 was okay but had significantly more vignetting and is my most used lens so got the Sony equivalent

100/2 was okay but Sony's 85/1.8 was far better

70-200/4 IS couldn't track my kids with movement so got the Sony 100-400 (had been interested in switching the to Canon 100-400 before switching)


----------



## jrvvn (Jan 30, 2018)

tron said:


> In the meantime my 16-35 lenses (4 IS and 2.8 III) work fine with my 5D4



ahaha well done ;D 

anyway.... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(


----------



## jrvvn (Jan 30, 2018)

eoren1 said:


> jrvvn said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...



You are my man of this forum since I have all the gear you have. I think you can feel my pain 

Spent 4000€ for bad focusing ... I'm crying :'(


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 30, 2018)

But you do have nearly a stop more dynamic range....


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> *Canon 16-35 F4* - Sucks so so so hard but so hard....cannot focus on shadows/dark areas. Bright area no issues, fast and accurate.
> 
> Canon 16-35 F4 was my main lens with Canon body, I'm kind regret in switching to Sony due to this AF issue.
> 
> ...



Which is kind of why you vacation in another country before you choose to _live_ there.

Rent before you buy/convert. This is 100% avoidable with a simple rental.

- A


----------



## ecqns (Jan 30, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> Spent 4000€ for bad focusing ... I'm crying :'(



Send the Metabones back or return and try a different one. People on these forums report getting bad lenses all the time, needing to find a "good" copy - an adapter is no different. You might also need to figure out the AF settings a bit better, not sure how you have set it up. You aren't trying to use Eye AF are you? I think that's only for Sony lenses.


----------



## eoren1 (Jan 30, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> You are my man of this forum since I have all the gear you have. I think you can feel my pain
> 
> Spent 4000€ for bad focusing ... I'm crying :'(



The way I think about adapters is as a bridge to the Sony system. It's great that they let you 'try out' the Sony body and figure out if the ergonomics and other add-on features are a good fit but, at the end of the day, native lenses are a far better option. The Metabones is supposed to enable Eye AF with the newest firmware but it's still not nearly as fast as the native lens.

I just sold all of my Canon gear so I can give you some math (in dollars) that may help (or not):

Bought Canon gear for $7,000 mostly in 2009 and 2012. Sold for $2875 (not including the 35/2). Since I sell prints, I run my photography as an LLC and took the depreciation of gear as 30% off my taxes so net cost to me of owning Canon gear for 6-8 years was about $2k. I made far more on prints during that time.

I purchased the Sony gear for $9,000. Minus depreciation it comes to $5,800. My earnings from photography easily offset this. I anticipate owning the gear for at least as long as the Canon and expect sales to continue at same rate so I should be able to appreciate a nice profit again.

If photography is purely a hobby and you do not sell prints, then you have to decide whether the cost of gear is a worthwhile expense. From the perspective of a father, I've already gotten more 'keepers' of my son playing basketball than I had with the Canon so that has been worth it.

Even more, the change in gear and choice of slightly different focal lengths has given me a nice creative boost.

Hope that helps...


----------



## COBRASoft (Jan 30, 2018)

Haven't read everything...

I also have a 5dIII but with a twist. The AA filter is removed from the sensor resulting in much sharper images. This combined with excellent glass from Canon and the IQ is superb. It's like I have a new camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 30, 2018)

eoren1 said:


> jrvvn said:
> 
> 
> > You are my man of this forum since I have all the gear you have. I think you can feel my pain
> ...



You need a better accountant! That aside the business use aspect is irrelevant in a direct cost to swap comparison.

If you bought a Canon 24-70 f2.8 for $1,250 in 2004 and could get $700 for it now (my situation), and a Sony 24-70 f2.8 costs $2,198 now then the cost to swap is $2,198 - $800, or $1,398 plus the difference in body values.


----------



## jrvvn (Jan 30, 2018)

eoren1 said:


> jrvvn said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...




I've tested again the lenses.

Any texture without some contrast (homogeneous texture) it will not focus for both lenses: 35mm F2 and 16-35 F4

e.g. table, car's door, fridge's door

I can guarantee my old 6D could focus on all the simple tests I did.


What's your experience with native Sony body + Sony lenses compared to Canon body + Canon lenses ?

I'm thinking in switching back to Canon...


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> eoren1 said:
> 
> 
> > jrvvn said:
> ...


Now I do not want to sound like a fan boy and it's actually not my business but if I was in that king of a situation I would try to exchange the Sony body with a Canon 5D4. But of course I believe that Sony will AF just fine with Sony lenses.


----------



## Talys (Jan 31, 2018)

@jrvvn - the Sony champion at the A7RIII event I went to suggested the Sigma over the Metabones adapter. You might want to see if that is any improvement. However, in my opinion, when I gave it a whirl, it was just clunky and far inferior to Canon on Canon or Sony on Sony. 

The cost of Sony lenses is way, way more than the cost of Canon lenses, especially for f/2.8's, which is something to consider. The camera store guy heavily promoted the Sony + Canon as a way to mitigate this (even to people present who did not own Canon lenses), and maybe it's a good way to get someone with a bag of Canon lenses to get jump into Sony. But personally, I don't think many people who just blew US$3,000 or whatever on a body will be happy with that. 

It also looks and feels awkward. I would recommend that if you love the Sony enough, go buy Sony lenses. Otherwise, just sell the Sony and get a 5D4. It's not like you won't get near-retail for a A7R3, since it's still highly constrained, or alternatively, lenses like the 16-35/4 can sell for close to boxing day/MAP sale prices.


----------



## ecqns (Jan 31, 2018)

Talys said:


> @jrvvn - the Sony champion at the A7RIII event I went to suggested the Sigma over the Metabones adapter. You might want to see if that is any improvement.



Lensrentals.com and others do not recommend using the Sigma adapter with Canon lenses. As I said 2 other times - I'd recommend exchanging the Metabones adpaters. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the issue. I have 2 - one older, one newer and mine are fine but I've heard about early models not being that reliable, so getting it checked out or exchanged might be worthwhile.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jan 31, 2018)

jrvvn said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > jrvvn said:
> ...



Ah I get you now, and yeah, I've heard it's quite variable depending on what lens is being used unfortunately. It also seems that it depends on the adapter being used, where lens A works well with the metabones but not as well as the mc-11 and vice versa. I wonder if this is one of those situations

The mc-11 has eye af on all the lenses I've tried so far, no issues there. 

Keen to hear what metabones say. 
The 6d center point is great yes, I still have my 6d that I use together with the sony. 

I have had a few days with the sony 28-70 and the af was far better in low light with this than any of the adapted lenses. I'll be getting either the 24-105 or the 24-70 sony for this range for the af at some point.


----------



## jrvvn (Jan 31, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> jrvvn said:
> 
> 
> > Isaacheus said:
> ...



Yesterday I've tested again and found out:

Under day light or low light situation, wherever the surface is smooth/surface with poor texture/low contrast, both lenses cannot focus. Canon 35 F2 can focus sometimes, but the fail rate can reach 50%. With Canon 16-35 F4 100% fail.
The surfaces I'm talking about are:
table, car's door, fridge, wall with shades (created by artificial light), cellphone, etc..
everything that looks smooth and no texture, it won't focus.

When there's *contrast*/*patterns are notably different* then both lenses have no issues in focusing.

It really pisses me off since the tests I did are not extreme, which means anybody can face these situations in a daily bases.

Metabones replied me this morning with some sort of stupid feedback: "have you tried Green-mode ?"
In Green-mode is even worse. Even with Canon 35 F2, the AF is so so so slow and the fail rate increases by 35-50%.

For me Focus scenarios coverage > focus speed. I don't mind in exchanging coverage for speed. (of course, not super slow). I'm happy and unsatisfied at same time.

Putting AF issue aside, the images taken are simly great. I visualize my images in 5k monitor and the image quality is simply astonish. For this reason I don't want to give up Sony A7R III.

I'm now researching more about MC-11, maybe can solve my problem.

Thank you for all your replies guys. Thumbs up


----------

