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

[Ryananthony]

Re: 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.

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]

Re: Well, I jumped...

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.

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

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]

Re: Well, I jumped...

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.

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]

Re: Well, I jumped...

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.

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.

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]

Re: Well, I jumped...

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]

Re: Well, I jumped...

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]

Re: 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.

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]

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.

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?

 

[Talys]

Re: Well, I jumped...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[dickgrafixstop]

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]

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]

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?