6 stop push: 5DsR vs A7R vs A7RII

[fragilesi]

...fanboys such as yourself who only have bad things to say about the a7 cameras and only good things about canon.

Yep, that's me – never said a good thing about a7 bodies, never said a bad thing about Canon. How's the weather there in dilbertland? Do let us know when you return to reality, mmmkay?

Yep that is you, I can't recall ever seeing you say anything positive about a a7 camera, however I see you all the time spam threads like these with FUD about things you have absolutely no practical experience with.

I'm not sure that you can exactly claim to be giving a balanced view in this debate either.

 

[msm]

Nope but if it happens it is so rare that it practically never happens. You pollute this forum with your useless sarcastic garbage at 10 posts a day, I should have seen it if you wrote anything positive about Sony or Nikon at any real frequency.

Yeah, I guess you missed the many times I stated that if landscape photography was my primary focus, I'd be using a D800/D810 and 14-24/2.8G (although that was before the 5Ds and 11-24/4L). But hey, if you didn't see it I guess it didn't happen. :

So in 17k posts that is all you can come up with? No wonder we missed it. ;D Now how many times have you written something negative about Nikon or Sony?

 

[msm]

...fanboys such as yourself who only have bad things to say about the a7 cameras and only good things about canon.

Yep, that's me – never said a good thing about a7 bodies, never said a bad thing about Canon. How's the weather there in dilbertland? Do let us know when you return to reality, mmmkay?

Yep that is you, I can't recall ever seeing you say anything positive about a a7 camera, however I see you all the time spam threads like these with FUD about things you have absolutely no practical experience with.

I'm not sure that you can exactly claim to be giving a balanced view in this debate either.

I haven't claimed to present a balanced view in this thread, I have tried it before though and in my opinion all camera gear have compromises. Build the system that fits you needs, regardless of what brand is on the lenses or camera. Brand loyalism makes no sense unless you are in love with a company logo or like to subsidize inferior equipment with your money.

 

[bdunbar79]

Couldn't give a toss how they achieve it, as long as it reduces the occurrence of posterisation and other compression artifacts.

Perhaps 100+ MB image files and a buffer that fills after 3-4 continuous shots and takes ages to clear are fine with you, but I doubt that's a common viewpoint. Be careful what you ask for...you may get it.

It's a shame to have to make a choice between the best body for my needs and the best sensor.

The choice remains what it has always been – picking which camera system best meets your needs.

No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.

There are also hotshoe adapters that bring in compatibility with Canon/Nikon hotshoe devices. They won't give you full in-camera TTL control over flash, but it will adapt flash as well as other hotshoe devices compatible with those brands (and in some cases, other brands as well).

The "system" argument is breaking down, which is exactly why the Sony Alpha line is so compelling. You DO NOT have to make a system choice anymore.

I think you still do if you live and die by AF. Especially AF speed and accuracy on big superteles.

 

[fragilesi]

I haven't claimed to present a balanced view in this thread, I have tried it before though and in my opinion all camera gear have compromises. Build the system that fits you needs, regardless of what brand is on the lenses or camera. Brand loyalism makes no sense unless you are in love with a company logo or like to subsidize inferior equipment with your money.

Yes, your needs and your money.

Which are different to my needs and sadly for me probably more than my money

But from reading your posts you seem to equate thinking that Canon is the better system with "brand loyalty" and thinking that the Sony A7 is the better system as some kind of objective analysis. I mean otherwise you'd be having the same discussion with Dilbert right?

I like the look of the A7R but trusting Sony (a company I now have a genuine distrust of) + Metabones (A company I admit to knowing nothing about) + my Canon lenses to deliver reliably . . . that to me is a hell of a leap of faith.

 

[zim]

I learnt a new term: FUD

and where I live a 'fud' is probably something waaay different from that term you just learnt, but amazingly and strangely still quite apt at times on CR ;D

 

[romanr74]

Nope but if it happens it is so rare that it practically never happens. You pollute this forum with your useless sarcastic garbage at 10 posts a day, I should have seen it if you wrote anything positive about Sony or Nikon at any real frequency. :

Could you guys please remain factual, it's 9.185 posts per day.

 

[ritholtz]

Forget about 6 stop push. There is discussion in dpr about compression artifacts and hot pixel issue in photographylife even with 4 stop push. Even if you sneeze, it will downgrade itself into 12 bit camera and gives up DR advantage.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56288185
https://photographylife.com/sony-a7r-ii-hot-pixel-issue
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3885355

 

[sdsr]

Why do you guys think people adapt Canon lenses on Sony bodies? Because they are stupid?

If you move from Canon to Sony or, like me, add Sony to Canon, the reasons are pretty obvious, even if there is a native Sony e mount equivalent. As for Roger Cicala's warning blogpost, it's important to pay attention to his conclusion:

"Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn't make much difference at all in the real world.... In the examples above ... center resolution is pretty much unchanged, it's only when you get away from center that you start to see issues. So someone shooting portraits and centered subjects is unlikely to notice an issue. A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image."

So it rather depends on what you use the camera for, and even then the problems may well be exaggerated (there are enough landscape photos out there taken via adapters available for perusal online). Some A/B comparisons via actual photos of something other than test charts would be useful. (I use a wide array of lenses, incl. Canon, on my Sony a7 cameras via adapters and don't notice a problem, perhaps because I seldom take photos where the edges matter or would be in focus.

(The main problem to date has been with the wider M mount Leica cameras; the one I've tried was terrible except in the center third or so of the image. Some claim that these perform better on the a7rII than on its various predecessors.)

 

[msm]

Why do you guys think people adapt Canon lenses on Sony bodies? Because they are stupid?

If you move from Canon to Sony or, like me, add Sony to Canon, the reasons are pretty obvious, even if there is a native Sony e mount equivalent. As for Roger Cicala's warning blogpost, it's important to pay attention to his conclusion:

"Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn't make much difference at all in the real world.... In the examples above ... center resolution is pretty much unchanged, it's only when you get away from center that you start to see issues. So someone shooting portraits and centered subjects is unlikely to notice an issue. A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image."

Exactly and when I test my Canon cameras against my A7R with my Canon lenses I have always gotten the same result. The A7R produces sharper files all across the frame, even in the corner. But hey R. Cicala wrote that article and some have fanboy glasses on so they missed that part of the article and think it is terrible.

The main problem with uniform sharpness in landscapes is field curvature in my experience and that is just as big problem with Canon cameras as Sony.

 

[crisotunity]

Forget about 6 stop push. There is discussion in dpr about compression artifacts and hot pixel issue in photographylife even with 4 stop push. Even if you sneeze, it will downgrade itself into 12 bit camera and gives up DR advantage.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56288185
https://photographylife.com/sony-a7r-ii-hot-pixel-issue
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3885355

The Photographylife article is hilarious. The author has sold a stunning, up-to-date camera (Nikon D810) because:
"Although I loved my D810 for landscape images [I suppose its kick-butt AF was not good enough for anything else], lugging the camera and tripod when going on vacation or hiking with a 20 month old child, has it’s challenges. The thoughts of a lighter set-up [the A7 is less than 250g lighter] and the 5-axis image stabilization [which miraculously allows for 0.5 to 10 second exposures, so who needs to lug around a tripod?] is what finally pushed me over".

Translation: I have so much disposable income, I literally don't know what I'm doing with it.

 

[msm]

But from reading your posts you seem to equate thinking that Canon is the better system with "brand loyalty" and thinking that the Sony A7 is the better system as some kind of objective analysis. I mean otherwise you'd be having the same discussion with Dilbert right?

I don't think any system is better in general, they all are better at some things and worse at others. Disregarding that and just posting positive things about one particular system and negative about others reeks of fanboyism.

I like the look of the A7R but trusting Sony (a company I now have a genuine distrust of) + Metabones (A company I admit to knowing nothing about) + my Canon lenses to deliver reliably . . . that to me is a hell of a leap of faith.

And I wouldn't recommend you to get one unless you know what you can expect and what you are after.

 

[Loswr]

No, that is no longer a choice you have to make. Not when the competition can use lenses from multiple "camera systems" and perform extremely well...possibly even better than cameras from within the same system.

The system argument is the go-to argument against picking up an A7 body when your already bought into a system. With the A7r II, there are more and more reviews stating that it performs as well or better than comparable Canon bodies when focusing with adapted Canon lenses. I think that invalidates the system argument...in the case of the A7r II.

So, if your able to use your existing lens kit, and are able to focus as fast or faster with an A7r II, then the "AF speed, focus accuracy, and distortion/sharpness across the frame" are not going to differ. It's the same lens, so distortion and sharpness are certainly not going to differ. AF speed is going to be similar if not better.

Or, maybe not.

I had high hopes. But there are now lots of real life people out there saying that exactly the Canon lenses I wanted to use the most with the SONY cannot AF with it or only slowly; 135L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II and 300 f/2.8 IS L II.

My pre-ordered SONY was set for delivery with the sloooowwww boat. So I actually have not tried it myself - but the reports are consistent enough for me to decide against the experiment for now.

But maybe it's just more FUD from a Canon fanboy... :

 

[romanr74]

I learnt a new term: FUD

It's FANBOYS, who FUD, not NOOBS, right, nor TROLLS...

 

[wockawocka]

In many ways I like the absent hype machine from Canon.

I ordered a second 5DSr today, af if just so much better than the 5D3.

 

[sdsr]

"Generally, yes, I think most people who buy a Sony camera to shoot Canon lenses are stupid and buy into the hype and sales speak. I don't buy into hype or sales speak, I personally test every lens I buy and every body too, if it has features or IQ differences that are meaningful and relevant to my images I buy them, if they don't then I don't buy them."

I think that buy canon lenses for canon bodies is neither stupid nor clever. Buying the new A7RII to use it with your canon lenses is neither stupid nor clever. Thinking that the people who chose the option you didn't is stupid is stupid indeed.

How about replacing "stupid" with "perhaps making a questionable decision", then? I've been briefly describing in another thread my experiences with my a7rII that arrived yesterday. While that's far too short a time to say much of value about the experience, it's not to short, I think, to make some observations that will likely hold up. At least via the Metabones III (others' experiences with IV suggest it doesn't make much difference), if AF matters, it's important to note that more than a few Canon lenses won't AF at all (some aren't even recognized), some will only focus when the camera is in contrast mode (= annoyingly slow and useless for action), and while a few will focus more-or-less as fast in phase mode as they do on Canon bodies, in less good light when using outer focus points the camera hunts ad nauseam; and I'm inclined to conclude that, leaving aside all that, in phase mode focusing may yield a lower accuracy rate than when attached to a Canon body (sometimes the camera seems it would rather focus on something else, if that something else is large enough and in front of the subject. On the other hand, it accurately and quickly focused on a subject I often have difficulty with AF (a hand on a black statute that has a black lamppost behind it - the camera correctly chose the hand rather than the lamppost)). This was all single-shot, flexible focus point, smallest size (the only sort of AF I'm interested in).

Presumably at some point a tester with a wide range of Canon lenses will provide a list of which Canon lenses provide, at least on some focus points, fast AF (that list won't include some favorites, such as the 85 1.8, 100L, 135L and 70-200 L IS; my 50mm 1.4 wasn't even recognized). And maybe someone will explain what I'm doing wrong (if anything) or that there's another adapter out there that does a better job.

The Canon lenses I own all work just fine (in terms of image quality) on any a7 if you like manual focusing; and mirrorless cameras with EVFs make that quite easy. But AF lenses typically have shorter focus throws than MF lenses and thus aren't as easy to focus precisely. So....

 

[3kramd5]

"Generally, yes, I think most people who buy a Sony camera to shoot Canon lenses are stupid and buy into the hype and sales speak. I don't buy into hype or sales speak, I personally test every lens I buy and every body too, if it has features or IQ differences that are meaningful and relevant to my images I buy them, if they don't then I don't buy them."

I think that buy canon lenses for canon bodies is neither stupid nor clever. Buying the new A7RII to use it with your canon lenses is neither stupid nor clever. Thinking that the people who chose the option you didn't is stupid is stupid indeed.

How about replacing "stupid" with "perhaps making a questionable decision", then? I've been briefly describing in another thread my experiences with my a7rII that arrived yesterday. While that's far too short a time to say much of value about the experience, it's not to short, I think, to make some observations that will likely hold up. At least via the Metabones III (others' experiences with IV suggest it doesn't make much difference), if AF matters, it's important to note that more than a few Canon lenses won't AF at all (some aren't even recognized), some will only focus when the camera is in contrast mode (= annoyingly slow and useless for action), and while a few will focus more-or-less as fast in phase mode as they do on Canon bodies, in less good light when using outer focus points the camera hunts ad nauseam; and I'm inclined to conclude that, leaving aside all that, in phase mode focusing may yield a lower accuracy rate than when attached to a Canon body (sometimes the camera seems it would rather focus on something else, if that something else is large enough and in front of the subject. On the other hand, it accurately and quickly focused on a subject I often have difficulty with AF (a hand on a black statute that has a black lamppost behind it - the camera correctly chose the hand rather than the lamppost)). This was all single-shot, flexible focus point, smallest size (the only sort of AF I'm interested in).

Presumably at some point a tester with a wide range of Canon lenses will provide a list of which Canon lenses provide, at least on some focus points, fast AF (that list won't include some favorites, such as the 85 1.8, 100L, 135L and 70-200 L IS; my 50mm 1.4 wasn't even recognized). And maybe someone will explain what I'm doing wrong (if anything) or that there's another adapter out there that does a better job.

The Canon lenses I own all work just fine (in terms of image quality) on any a7 if you like manual focusing; and mirrorless cameras with EVFs make that quite easy. But AF lenses typically have shorter focus throws than MF lenses and thus aren't as easy to focus precisely. So....

Fredmiranda's forum has a list of canon glass which works, and I believe gives consideration to how well. However it doesn't disclose what modes are being used, etc.

The long and short of it is, generally speaking: if your lens was designed before 2006, it probably won't work. After 2006, they work progressively better, with the exception of telephotos.


When the FE lenses get here next week I'm eager to try peeking. With my canon glass is laughably bad. I hope it's useable with native glass.

 

[sdsr]

When the FE lenses get here next week I'm eager to try peeking. With my canon glass is laughably bad. I hope it's useable with native glass.

If by "peeking" you're referring to manual focusing with "focus peaking," my experience is that it's best used in conjunction with magnification. My success rate using peaking by itself is pretty high if the subject is close and falls as it gets farther away; beyond a certain point I find it so unreliable as to be useless. Used in conjunction with magnification, however, the results are always dead-on accurate (unless I screw something up) regardless of distance, better than AF, including with Canon lenses (though MF is easier with lenses designed for MF; not only is the throw short on AF lenses, on some Canons - the 50mm 1.4 is perhaps the worst of those I've tried - the focus ring won't stay put if you remove your grip on it, which makes the process even more unreliable). I've not tried manually focusing my two FE lenses, though, so perhaps what I've just written won't apply to them - but it might: I've read complaints about the usefulness of Sony's focus peaking used by itself vs Olympus's (I've not tried the latter - my OM-D Em5 is too old).