Canon to Sony

Long story short:

Used to shoot Minolta and migrated to Sony when they were purchased. Had a 3 Zeiss lenses and an a850. Decided to change to Canon for various reasons. Now have the 5Dmk3 and the glass in my sig. I've recently closed down my photog business and want to get back to shooting for me, not others. Smaller kit wouldn't be bad either.

Thinking of selling off my gear and getting the A7mk2, 24-70 and 70-200 FE Sony lenses.

Looking for any decent input.
I plan on focusing on landscape/architectura​l and travel photography.

I'd sell my entire kit for $4500 to be done w/ it but will most likely have to piece it out or sell to KEH to do this. Their quote for it all is $4000, but if you buy each piece at the same rating they'd charge you $6600, so I know I could get them to bump it $500 to me.

Am I crazy?

Yes you are crazy.

The subjects you express interest in are landscape/architectura​l and travel photography. For the most part you are at f8 - f22 for these styles. The lenses you currently own are as sharp as Zeiss lenses at those apertures.

You also, for architectural shots in particular, have access to tilt shift lenses with the canon system.

The new 5Dr or 5Ds will give you a huge resolution boost, if that is one reason for swapping, I hazard that you wouldn't need to stump up much extra cash trading in the mark 3.

1200/1300 grams difference in weight. 2/3 centimetres difference in overall length. You might be able to carry it for 6 hours and it feel like you have carried it for 4 hours, how valuable that is only you know.

Battery life on a mirrorless is dismal compared to a Dslr, when out travelling don't you need better battery life not worse? Official spares are not cheap.

Could you give up the optical viewfinder? They don't give you an unbiased colour pallet, or representation of actual contrast.

No system is the end of all systems, the grass is always greener and all that. Not sure that any benefits you might see from the Sony system outweigh the money you will lose swapping over.

you are NOT crazy. The 70-200 F2.8 is large and heavy, and F2.8 is generally not desired for landscapes, and jimeup1, you're reasoning makes little sense.

tilt shifts can be used on the sony system....

1 kilo in weight savings is significant when you're hiking or walking a lot, as well as significantly smaller profile.

batteries..... meh, wasabi, 2 for $20. Great thing about the camera is that you can use any old micro USB charger. I find that I dont even need spares when I travel. I do have them around just in case of course, however, the ability to charge the batteries via USB has become a real treat.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/q13c​RZ

no the 70-200 f2.8 is ridiculous, easily replaced with the f4 version and that is just as light as the Sony version.

I was mistaken with the tilt shift lenses, while Sony don't have their own brand ones, third parties are available.

The new 5ds and 5dr have not even had real reviews done of them yet! DR has not yet tested, but they are clearly aimed at the exact type of photographer the OP is aiming to be though, might be an idea to hold off until they are out properly before making a decision.
Plenty of award winning photo's have been taken on a 5d mark 3 though, DR measurebating does not a photo make.

EVF's are a matter of preference, I looked through various ones, Fuji, Olympus and Sony, thinking about doing a similar swap to either Sony or Fuji. I believe they do better in good light outside, but in a brightly lit store... it lagged really badly, with any sort of movement.

The smaller form factor seemed to detract from actual comfort, and I do not have large hands, and by the time you have a telephoto zoom mounted, especially with the eos adapter, it sticks out just as much, small native primes though, I can really see the benefit, almost like a compact camera the weight balances better.

Again, you are going to lose money doing the swap over, what are you truly going to gain?

the lagging is dependent on your lens and settings.

if you're using a faster lens and NOT using DOF preview (enabled by default on sony), then you're viewfinder is fine, even in low light.

tilt shift lenses dont do autofocus, so it makes little difference if shot via sony or canon.

smaller form factor detracting from comfort? lol, you're shooting the telephoto with two hands anyhow, good luck holding it up to your eye with one hand. Try going on a 3 mile hike with your canon kit, then do one with the sony kit and let me know how it plays out. The slimmer profile means slimmer bags, easier to get through tight spots.

What do you gain? A noticeable boost in dynamic range, which may eliminate the necessity of some filters (packing even smaller), more resolving power in a smaller package, smaller footprint, large access of lenses, including older FD, leica, voightlander, on top of the ability to use canon EF lenses.

traveling with a DSLR is a pain, and I really only pull mine out for low light events.... and even then, I think I may get away with the sony setup and fast primes. Lighter weight means uphill climbs are much easier.

You keep the DSLR around because the 1/2 second difference in AF can mean a missed shot, however, if you have a 1/2 second to spare, mirrorless makes more sense.

All good banter and things to think about both ways. I still haven't come to a conclusion but am leaning on making the change. I'll sit it out for a while and let it brew but I appreciate the debate both ways.

I love these sort of discussions / debates / banters - It's interesting to hear what other people are "passionate" about and I try hard to wrap my brain around opinions that might seem so divergent from mine - I find that in the end, that's how I learn more about each point of view.

Of course you hold a camera with two hands, you can hold a camera with two hands and it still feel squished together.

I would take a mirrorless camera in a DSLR's body form. It would still be lighter. Could even be given better battery life as a result.

But EVF's need to be better in low light, which after sunset, just before sunrise and astrophotography, hell even in the city street with no direct sunlight would give you problems.
Give a accurate colour display, even with OLED the human eye sees more colours than even a rec. 2020 display, which still don't exist yet.

The auto focus needs to be faster, 1/2 a second longer to focus? So even the best lenses focus like a plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8 on a rebel camera? Hardly what you would call $1000 worth of lens.

As a wedding photographer that would seem a massive step back, the OP is talking about static subject mostly so perhaps that won't matter for him.

I do understand that once the bodies get better auto focus that problem will disappear.

I can put a lot of old lenses on my canon camera, and while I have enjoyed playing with them, they are better than modern consumer lenses, but the professional lenses from Canon, Nikon Sigma etc. are better still and have AF. That's a huge bonus for professional work, personal work I guess it would be down to taste.

Not having to carry a few filters? I have yet to see a picture shot into the sun that can actually capture the dynamic range without blowing highlight or losing shadow detail, never mind having to have the printer capable of printing such a large dynamic range.

I do understand that mirrorless might be the future, I just don't believe we are at that point yet.

You could work around the other issues, buy a grip, extra batteries, invest in some patience, be willing to occasionally pre focus and spray and pray, but you have to get on with the type of viewfinder or it all falls down.

When I got excited and had the same thought as the OP the EVF was the line in the sand.

Yes the banter is good, if you have two sides of an argument then the OP might have a better chance of an informed decision either way.

Can't be having the sales and marketing goons at the local camera store misinforming you, just to make a sale.

I believe the EVF has come a long way. The original EVF in Sony is one of the reasons I switched from Sony to Minolta. I lost DR in the switch but I wasn't ready for EVF. I think they are much better now and useable for my type of photography.

I just made the switch first from a 6D to an a7R and now have the a7S and I'm extremely pleased, I don't see it going anywhere for a good long while.

The EVF argument is honestly null. I was one of the naysayers before trying an a7 too, but as Charlie pointed out, if you have the camera set up right the lag really isn't an issue, even with the a7R (and it's literally never an issue with the a7S, with it I can manually focus in a 60watt lit room at f8 and 1/100s, ISO 25,600... try that with a DSLR).

Another point about the EVF... who cares if the human eye can see more colors or more accurately than the EVF, the EVF is more in line with what your exposure is going to look like, I find it extremely helpful for getting my white balance right in camera before I even click the shutter. I'd personally rather know what my sensor sees than what I'm seeing.

I went from a 1DX and 5D Mark III to the A7II, A7s and the a6000.

I shoot weddings and commercial work.

Here's my take on my switch.

I'm happy as a clam. The weight difference is amazing. When carrying the canons for over 10 hours I was broken, completely tired. Especially carrying the 70-200 f2.8 II. While it's an amazing lens, it's a complete beast. The 70-200 f4 is more than enough. The DR of the Sony cameras trumps the Canons a ton. The a7s can focus in near darkness and be externally accurate. The IBIS on the A7II is a godsend and even works with the canon lenses I decided to keep.

The main thing is that the A7 series focusing tends to be a little less stellar than the Canons (A lot less actually). But the focus peaking and zebra allow me to quickly pull focus manually (As fast if not faster than the 5D mIII) in low light.

Also, I'm able to carry 3 cameras at once and be able to shoot one handed if necessary

It really is an amazing system and so far has been a great tool for me to use in both Wedding and commercial

I looked into Sony (as a secondary body) but wasn't impressed with their lens choices and prices. With Canon I know what I got and what I'm going to get.

I'm not concerned w/ the glass. I shot Sony previous and I will say I loved my G and Zeiss glass over my current L glass. it's not cheap but neither is the L.

The glass will get cheaper as more people adopt the system, it grows in popularity every month. Canon and Nikon can only afford to sell cheaper because they sell in higher volume, my bet is that time will change that.

Plus, with the Sony's you can use any Canon or Nikon glass you want

mdrtoys wrote in post #17429434
I went from a 1DX and 5D Mark III to the A7II, A7s and the a6000.

I shoot weddings and commercial work.

Here's my take on my switch.

I'm happy as a clam. The weight difference is amazing. When carrying the canons for over 10 hours I was broken, completely tired. Especially carrying the 70-200 f2.8 II. While it's an amazing lens, it's a complete beast. The 70-200 f4 is more than enough. The DR of the Sony cameras trumps the Canons a ton. The a7s can focus in near darkness and be externally accurate. The IBIS on the A7II is a godsend and even works with the canon lenses I decided to keep.

The main thing is that the A7 series focusing tends to be a little less stellar than the Canons (A lot less actually). But the focus peaking and zebra allow me to quickly pull focus manually (As fast if not faster than the 5D mIII) in low light.

Also, I'm able to carry 3 cameras at once and be able to shoot one handed if necessary

It really is an amazing system and so far has been a great tool for me to use in both Wedding and commercial

Just curious, why do you own both the A7II the A7s? Does the A7s not suffice for most of the work you do? I'm moving to Sony soon but haven't decided on which body..