Why You Should Stick with Your Canon DSLR and Forget Sony FF Mirrorless

Aglet

EOR R
Feb 26, 2012
1,726
15
AB
Hillsilly said:
Of course, one of the positive in Sony's favour is that their sensors are highly regarded. Their only real direct competitor in relation to sensor performance is Nikon.
... and Pentax and Fuji and Panasonic and Olympus and now the new 80D may be competitive too. (as far as body brands)
 

9VIII

EOR R
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
The Fuji X-Pro 2 has the same sensor as the A6300 (or at least same fabrication process).
A lot of rumors last year were talking about the delays in new Fuji bodies stemming from Sony's reluctance to release a new body of their own, pushing back sensor production. They both have the same resolution (within 0.1MP) and "copper wire technology", Sony probably just kept the best Autofocus layout for themselves (twice as many AF points, but when the X-Pro 2 has over 200 points the total number is just next to irrelevant).
 

msm

EOS RP
Jun 8, 2013
309
1
I just have to reply some of the claims in OP because they are just false. This is a typical cheerleader thread posting only negatives about Sony and mentioning none of the advantages. On top of that some of the disadvantages seem to only exist in OP's head:

We may never see anything like the Canon 11-24mm f/4 rectilinear lens for E mount, and it would hardly be predicted to perform well if it did appear.
We can already predict that. It already performs great on the A7R or RII with no visible loss of image quality when mounted on a good adapter. I have 2 metabones adapters and the same this applies to both of them, the combo yields vastly better results than on my 5DIII. This obviously proves that it is possible to make such a lens and it is in fact no harder than it is for EF mount, but is there a market for it? We are already getting 3 native Voigtländer primes at less than 1/3rd or 1/4th the weight which can go even wider at 1/3rd the cost.

You can also see that both Sony and Pentax are adding IBIS to excessively narrow mounts purely as a marketing ploy, with flagrant disregard towards optical fundamentals. It represents the victory of advertising over engineering. For the credulous it represents Sony's triumph over the laws of physics.
In theory IBIS can cause some image degradation as can optical stabilization. But in practice I can find no Sony users complaining about visible image degradation due to IBIS on any of the Sony forums I have read since the day IBIS was introduced. Maybe it works a little better in practice than the OP gives impression of with his ridiculous post where he calls Sony "retarded"? Could it perhaps be that the camera shake without IBIS would cause vastly more image quality problems? Not bad for a "marketing ploy" from a bunch of "retards" ::)

The one who is "technically challenged" here is the OP and this is the most ridiculous post I have seen for quite some time. In one of his examples of the A7 he has even mounted a APS-C lens on it, leading me to think this is just another cheerleader kiddo bashing a camera he has never used more than at most 5min if at all, sure as hell demonstrates his ignorance of the system.
 

j-nord

Derp
Feb 16, 2016
467
3
Colorado
Sunnystate said:
For now maybe ;-)

Just think of A6300 plus Sigma 150-600 with Sigma native adapter and voila: incredibly capable set up for around $2500 with whopping 900mm reach, or new Sony 70-300mm with A6300 for around $2000 with reach of 450mm, beat that!!!

dilbert said:
Where does that leave the DSLR?

Shooting events (ie. weddings), animals/birds and sports.
Ever try to track birds with a mirror (DSLR)? How about simply finding a subject with 500+mm? Either can be very difficult. EVF lag makes it that much harder. I'm sure EVFs will eventually get 'good enough' but will never be as fast as a mirror reflecting light.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,060
j-nord said:
Ever try to track birds with a mirror (DSLR)? How about simply finding a subject with 500+mm? Either can be very difficult. EVF lag makes it that much harder. I'm sure EVFs will eventually get 'good enough' but will never be as fast as a mirror reflecting light.
Irrelevant. Some are arteeeests, for whom creation is about the process, not the product. As long as one is out there in nature, without the distracting slap of a mirror and viewing the world as a comfortable, slightly delayed electronic representation, well, actually focusing on the bird doesn't really matter.

;)
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
I, too, was one who tried the Sony a7 (and Sony A7 II) after reading about how much better it was than Canon, how you had to have the extra DR, especially for landscapes, etc. I meant it to replace my Canon 6D - especially for the reduction in weight. Well the weight advantage was the only advantage. I understand that the gear heads care all about specs and the test results of sensors. Yeah, Sony looks good there, but if you shoot in daylight (at least in my experience) there is no noticeable difference between the Sony and the Canon. That extra DR does not show up in any appreciable way. What did show up was very poor IQ at the edges of the pics using the Sony lenses. What does show up was how lousy the EVF is. What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7. I realize that these things are controlled by processing, but, quite frankly, processing is what matters most since we never actually see what the sensor sees. If the color processing and tone curves aren't up to snuff, than the sensor just doesn't matter that much. So, the Canon is still in my bag and the two Sonys I tried went back to the store.

This is not to say that there is nothing advantageous to mirrorless. I have owned Olympus m4/3 cameras - and because it is both 4/3 and mirrorless, then the size and weight advantage is real. Mirrorless is great - but not for FF, in my opinion.
 

emko

EOS 80D
Sep 15, 2012
195
0
dak723 said:
I, too, was one who tried the Sony a7 (and Sony A7 II) after reading about how much better it was than Canon, how you had to have the extra DR, especially for landscapes, etc. I meant it to replace my Canon 6D - especially for the reduction in weight. Well the weight advantage was the only advantage. I understand that the gear heads care all about specs and the test results of sensors. Yeah, Sony looks good there, but if you shoot in daylight (at least in my experience) there is no noticeable difference between the Sony and the Canon. That extra DR does not show up in any appreciable way. What did show up was very poor IQ at the edges of the pics using the Sony lenses. What does show up was how lousy the EVF is. What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7. I realize that these things are controlled by processing, but, quite frankly, processing is what matters most since we never actually see what the sensor sees. If the color processing and tone curves aren't up to snuff, than the sensor just doesn't matter that much. So, the Canon is still in my bag and the two Sonys I tried went back to the store.

This is not to say that there is nothing advantageous to mirrorless. I have owned Olympus m4/3 cameras - and because it is both 4/3 and mirrorless, then the size and weight advantage is real. Mirrorless is great - but not for FF, in my opinion.
you are comparing jpeq? and you cant see the difference in DR? well of course lol
 

NancyP

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 17, 2013
1,297
14
Why? I love my mirror-slappers, always have, ever since my first one (Mamiya-Sekor 1000DTL, circa 1968). Ergonomics, good pentaprisms - what's not to like? To my mind, the SLR is the perfect all-around camera, and the mirrorless cameras are specialty items or snap-shooter items. I love my Sigma Merrill DP2M and DP3M fixed-lens 45mm equiv and 75mm equiv mirrorless cameras, but they are specialty for landscape.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,082
404
emko said:
dak723 said:
I, too, was one who tried the Sony a7 (and Sony A7 II) after reading about how much better it was than Canon, how you had to have the extra DR, especially for landscapes, etc. I meant it to replace my Canon 6D - especially for the reduction in weight. Well the weight advantage was the only advantage. I understand that the gear heads care all about specs and the test results of sensors. Yeah, Sony looks good there, but if you shoot in daylight (at least in my experience) there is no noticeable difference between the Sony and the Canon. That extra DR does not show up in any appreciable way. What did show up was very poor IQ at the edges of the pics using the Sony lenses. What does show up was how lousy the EVF is. What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7. I realize that these things are controlled by processing, but, quite frankly, processing is what matters most since we never actually see what the sensor sees. If the color processing and tone curves aren't up to snuff, than the sensor just doesn't matter that much. So, the Canon is still in my bag and the two Sonys I tried went back to the store.

This is not to say that there is nothing advantageous to mirrorless. I have owned Olympus m4/3 cameras - and because it is both 4/3 and mirrorless, then the size and weight advantage is real. Mirrorless is great - but not for FF, in my opinion.
you are comparing jpeq? and you cant see the difference in DR? well of course lol
I might have missed it, but didn't see any mention that he was comparing JPEG.

However, there is more than that one explanation: The situations in which you'll see an advantage are a relatively narrow band (i.e. more than ~11 stops and less than about ~13 stops of scene DR), and further, you won't necessarily realize that advantage unless you increase shadow brightness in post.


dak723 said:
What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7.
That very well may be because the shadows aren't clipped to black as early on the A7.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
countofmc95 said:
... Sony A7, and the major turnoff for me was the price of the native lenses.
+1

exactly. Sony lens prices are way too high,. for what it is. Zeiss badge notwithstanding. And Fuji charges FF prices for APS-C only lenses. No way. Aside from the Canon UI and all the Canon gear I giot, lens pricing is the main reason I have not yet bought a Sony mirrorless system.

Sony got the bodies, Canon got the lenses ... and I am not going to mess around with metabones adapter.
 

benperrin

EOS RP
Feb 10, 2012
263
1
benjaminperrinphotography.com
Geez, posts like this are just as silly as the folks saying that Canon cameras can't take good images. They are 2 different system and have their advantages and disadvantages. I bought the a7r2 and have zero regrets. I'll still look the the 5d4 when it comes out and also the 5dsr2. How can you seriously complain about IBIS though? It's a feature and you have the ability to use it or not and believe me it does make a difference. Is that difference significant? Probably not always but I'd prefer to have a feature that can help save a shot to a camera that doesn't have any. Seriously it's up to the user to determine whether or not a system is better or worse. Just because you have buyers remorse doesn't mean others will because people have different wants and needs. Buy whatever the heck you want to buy but don't tell me that dslrs are for everyone or that mirrorless is for everyone. Remember that it's not the camera but the tool behind it.
 

Mr1Dx

EOS T7i
Feb 6, 2015
51
0
I gave away 80% my Canon gear to grandkids.

I now carry a7r II + Batis 25/85 around the world as landscape/people portrait tools. The FE 35mm f2.8 is my street lens. Never feel I need to carry my 5dr/1dx 24-70, 70-200, 135, 400 or 600 etc...

Even on my recent trip to safari park in Kenya, a pair of a7r II plus Batis 25 and FE 70-200 f4 were perfectly fine.
 

tiltshift

EOS M50
Dec 8, 2012
33
3
I know 3 other people, 4 counting myself with Sony FF mirrorless and not one of us bought it for the size... while that might have been the original idea behind mirrorless I doubt at least with FF mirrorless that is the case. I think people need to move past that as a reason not to buy a into a system. especially when it matters so little. I mean what is the argument here.. dont buy FF Sony cause its lenses are big and heavy, you should buy the alternative (Canon/Nikon/etc) whose lesnes are just as big and heavy? there are lots of reasons not to buy Sony and stick to Canon or Nikon but this one is just odd to me. if you want small you are looking at APS-c anyways...

I bought my Sony a7rII because it offered features and performance NO single DLSR from Canon was offering at the time. Even factoring the metabones it still, for my style of shooting exceeds Canons offerings. and guess what with all my Canon glass I can just pick up a 5DIV if it changes the equation if not I can buy another sony and use adapted lenses. What does it cost anyone here if that is how myself, and others are doing to get the best results we can?

I agree with MSM, poster doesn't seem to grasp things well. very very "ranty" post. if he needs features that aren't present on a Sony then don't buy one.. Just misleading to say forget Sony FF mirrorless.
 
Apr 1, 2016
1
0
What I have learned:

I should stick with Canon because:

Pentax offers in body shake reduction as well
Fuji is even smaller
Sony-A-Mount has an EVF as well
If owning Sony I will forget part of my equipment

Convinced, Canon it will be... not ;D
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,294
180
dilbert said:
AvTvM said:
countofmc95 said:
... Sony A7, and the major turnoff for me was the price of the native lenses.
+1

exactly. Sony lens prices are way too high,. for what it is.
...
Sony appear to be working on fixing this too.

The latest zoom lens, their 70-300/f4.5-5.6, is cheaper than the equivalent Canon lens (70-300L) and on paper delivers better IQ.

Maybe this is a sign of things to come?
Hope their service improves. It's a risk when you have a lot of $$$ invested in the system.
 

Sator

EOS T7i
Oct 14, 2015
60
1
photonicshunkan.blogspot.com
AvTvM said:
countofmc95 said:
... Sony A7, and the major turnoff for me was the price of the native lenses.
+1

exactly. Sony lens prices are way too high,. for what it is. Zeiss badge notwithstanding. And Fuji charges FF prices for APS-C only lenses. No way. Aside from the Canon UI and all the Canon gear I giot, lens pricing is the main reason I have not yet bought a Sony mirrorless system.

Sony got the bodies, Canon got the lenses ... and I am not going to mess around with metabones adapter.
I think this may the reason for the higher price of native FE mount lenses. It has to do with the higher R&D costs for the lenses, which are challenging to design as the Sigma CEO states.

Here is the latest inconvenience:



From: http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,624.512,596.354,ha,t

It shows the full frame mirrorless Leica SL with the 50mm f/1.4 Summicron, the Sony a7RII with the 90mm f/2.8 macro G, and the Canon 5DsR with the 50mm f/1.2 lens. I had to double check a couple of times to convince myself that the Leica 50mm Summicron really was that big and that no mistake had been made with lens choice.

The Leica SL full frame mirrorless mount diameter is wider than that of the FE mount (51mm vs. 46.1mm). This shows why Sony used an APS-C mount on their FF mirrorless model, because if you use a dedicated FF mount with dimensions more typical of a full frame mount like those of the Leica SL mount, it causes an even more massive blowout in the lens size! Now we understand the basis for the Sigma CEOs puzzlement when he said that "...the diameter [of the FE mount ] is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses ... it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF".

Sony simply had to put an APS-C lens mount into a full frame body, because otherwise a 50mm f/1.4 lens would have ended up the same size as a 90mm f/2.8 macro lens:



From: http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,624.395,596.538,ha,t

Here the Leica SL is shown with the 50mm f/1.4 Summicron, the Sony a7RII with the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8, and the Canon 5DSR with the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 lens.

Yet even after putting an APS-C mount onto a full frame body, Sony still failed to reign in the blow out in lens size on professional fast lenses as this comparison of 85mm f/1.4 lenses on the a7RII and the a99 shows:



The added difficulty in designing full frame lenses for an APS-C mount on a FF body explains why the roll out of lenses has been so slow and the resulting lenses more expensive. It explains the reluctance of Tamron and Sigma to make FE mount lenses, because they are concerned about the ability to recoup R&D cost.
 

LOALTD

EOS RP
Nov 24, 2012
230
0
www.andrewholmanphoto.com
Weird, I find it much easier to take one-handed photos while climbing with my A7R II and 28mm f/2.0 than I do with my 5D Mk III and 28mm f/2.8 IS. And I get an extra stop of light gathering ability. Guess it all depends on how you shoot, I've never been an f/2.8 zoom guy.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,788
876
119
dilbert said:
btw, the 50/1.2L is great if you like center sharp and everything else a soft mush and out of focus.

The newer designs (e.g. Zeiss 55mm and Sigma 50mm Art) are also long lenses when compared to the Canon 50/1.2L. And they're deisgned for Canon mount Full Frame.

The smallness of the 50/1.2L is a great example of sacrificing lens size for high resolution across the full field.

Or in other words, the 50/1.2L might have a red ring around it and an "L" in its name, but it is a piece of crap optically - the larger Sigma and Zeiss lenses are much better.
The 50 f1.2L is a no compromise portrait lens, it is the way it is because that is what Canon wanted it to be, nothing more or less.

That the particular characteristics it has might not appeal to some people is entirely irrelevant, it was designed to give the look it gives on purpose and is certainly not "a piece of crap optically", only somebody who has never used one for its intended purpose could make a comment like that. Ultimate sharpness across the frame was never its intended design objective, indeed sharpness is an entirely overrated lens characteristic nowadays, there are vastly more interesting characteristics to infuse an image, especially a portrait image, than sharpness.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,060
privatebydesign said:
dilbert said:
btw, the 50/1.2L is great if you like center sharp and everything else a soft mush and out of focus.

The newer designs (e.g. Zeiss 55mm and Sigma 50mm Art) are also long lenses when compared to the Canon 50/1.2L. And they're deisgned for Canon mount Full Frame.

The smallness of the 50/1.2L is a great example of sacrificing lens size for high resolution across the full field.

Or in other words, the 50/1.2L might have a red ring around it and an "L" in its name, but it is a piece of crap optically - the larger Sigma and Zeiss lenses are much better.
The 50 f1.2L is a no compromise portrait lens, it is the way it is because that is what Canon wanted it to be, nothing more or less.

That the particular characteristics it has might not appeal to some people is entirely irrelevant, it was designed to give the look it gives on purpose and is certainly not "a piece of crap optically", only somebody who has never used one for its intended purpose could make a comment like that. Ultimate sharpness across the frame was never its intended design objective, indeed sharpness is an entirely overrated lens characteristic nowadays, there are vastly more interesting characteristics to infuse an image, especially a portrait image, than sharpness.
None of that logic applies in dilbertland. Heck, in that fanciful place the 50L might even be a camera!
 

Sator

EOS T7i
Oct 14, 2015
60
1
photonicshunkan.blogspot.com
Yes, that went totally off track. I obviously chose the Canon 50mm f/1.2 just so people can get a rough idea of just how big the Leica SL 50mm Summicron is. That's what happens when you put a proper full frame mount into a full frame mirrorless camera instead of doing what Sony has done in putting in an APS-C mount. Sony have taken a big risk in creating mirrorless full frame cameras, and by differentiating themselves from the competition have created a splash, but there are sound optical engineering reasons why Sony's competitors refuse to go down the path Sony has either boldly or rashly rushed down.

For those of you who prefer to compare the Leica SL lens against the Canon nifty fifty, here you go, here it is compared against the 50mm f/1.8:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,624.512,624.580,596.306,ha,t



The point here is that there are inherent design problems with making larger format mirrorless cameras. That's the reason why Canon, Nikon, and Fuji are only making APS-C format mirrorless cameras.

A sober reading of what I've posted would better lead to the conclusion that I have raised serious questions about the full frame mirrorless format, but that I am more optimistic about full frame DSLT and similar evolutions of the DSLR design lineage. The fact that I am all for the potential inherent to Sony's A mount DSLT technology doesn't mean I am on Sony's payroll either. Nor does the fact that I question the wisdom of jumping from Canon DSLRs to full frame mirrorless mean I am on Canon's payroll. It is simply that the naive triumphalism of those who have prematurely declared the comprehensive victory of mirrorless over DSLR is reminiscent of George W. Bush in declaring "mission accomplished".