Canon 80D to Sony ?

Found out today that I have a very large discount through work on Sony DSLRs...

Right now I shoot with a Canon 80D, and have a Tamron 24-70 and F/4 70-200. Thinking about selling it to switch over to the Sony setup.

Most of my shooting is automotive and stills (autos), and having the 4K video option would be nice, even though i dont shoot video (yet).

Looking at the 6300/6500, or possibly the A7/A7 II....

Any particular recommendations on either, and as to why? I dont feel i NEED a full frame, and it would shoot slower, but....why would I want it, if i went with the A7?

Any decent lenses out there for not a TON of cash, as I am seeing that Sony lenses are priced considerably higher than the comparable Canon.

Thanks all!

it depends on your usage.
One thing holding me back from the sony system is the lens division.
There are adapters to help in this aspect.

one friend of mine uses her canon mount sigma lens with mc-11 adaptor when using her a6300....
if you don't shoot action, think sony a6500.
for action, DSLR / DSLT is still better.

Ah-keong wrote in post #18324778
it depends on your usage.
One thing holding me back from the sony system is the lens division.
There are adapters to help in this aspect.

one friend of mine uses her canon mount sigma lens with mc-11 adaptor when using her a6300....
if you don't shoot action, think sony a6500.
for action, DSLR / DSLT is still better.

I was reading the A6300/6500 is faster, and with more AF points...might be better for action?

Remember that the Sony's are not DSLRs, they do not have an optical viewfinder. Personally I just don't like EVFs at all, so could not consider moving to any of the Sony cameras just because of that. When it comes to small sized systems the need for an OVF would limit me to either the Fuji X-Pro 1/2 or the Leica M series. I think they are the only two options for systems with an OVF.

I also use long lenses quite a bit, xx-300mm, 100-400mm L V1, and now the Sigma 150-600mm C were used for about 80% of my exposures. The smaller cameras have no advantages in native lens size once you are using a optical telephoto lens design. you simply need large bits of glass to build a even a 600mm f/6.3 lens, which requires a front element of around 100mm in diameter.

So personally I will be staying with my DSLR, with it's OVF and enough mass, with the battery grip, to couter balance the big lenses.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18324891
Remember that the Sony's are not DSLRs, they do not have an optical viewfinder. Personally I just don't like EVFs at all, so could not consider moving to any of the Sony cameras just because of that. When it comes to small sized systems the need for an OVF would limit me to either the Fuji X-Pro 1/2 or the Leica M series. I think they are the only two options for systems with an OVF.

Alan

The a6500 has the faster EVF and keeping up with moving targets isn't an issue.

Derek1387 wrote in post #18324786
I was reading the A6300/6500 is faster, and with more AF points...might be better for action?

I would say true and false. I find the EVF refresh rate still a bit behind OVF.
In addition, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II is a gem for shooting sports....

Sorry to say, I am comparing complete solution A to complete solution B.
But I like my friend's a6300 when we go out for casual shoot and travel.

While I do have a cannon 7Dii for my Sigma 150-600 I have shot geese in flight with my Sony a6000 and Sony 70-200 with an extremely high keeper rate, sad to say better keeper rate than the cannon and sigma...just sayin.

I don't understand why the other resplier (Ah-keong) keeps talking about what he personally prefers or like than trying to help the original poster in making his decision! OK, I will try my best to be unbiased here; lol.

I own the Sony system and I really like it a lot. However, I think one reason that makes the Sony system preferable is its relatively compact size and that it's overall lighter than equivalent Canon and Nikon systems. For a lot of people the difference makes or break a deal. Another win card of the Sony system is the superiory of their sensors comparing to Canon sensors though I have read the most recent Canon models have narrowed the gap.

However, they are potential disadvantages: the Sony mirrorless system is still and overall slower system compared to Canon and Nikon systems that have been around for decades and evolved to be fast: the camera's start up is slower, the AF may not be as fast, etc.. However, the third generation Sony APSC cameras (A6300, A6500) and the second generation Sony FF cameras (A7rii, A7sii) have narrowed the gap. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation be on par with well established DSLR's.

Regarding AF system: the top of the line Canon and Nikon cameras may still have superior AF system (faster and more reliable). However, the lower end models may not be that good or any different than the most Sony cameras. So decision must be based on case by case comparison and not jumping on a general conclusion.

It's true that the Sony lenses are sometimes more expensive than equivalent C/N lenses. However, I have to say some of these Sony lenses are indeed some of the best lenses ever made. Just check the DXO tests and user reviews: Sony Zeiss Sonnar 24mm f1.8 (APSC), Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8, Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.5, Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4, 90mm f2.8 OSS G macro, etc.. Then there are also excellent Zeiss Loxia and Batis lenses. The equivalent Zeiss lenses in C/N mounts may cost a lot more (Otus).

Then there are numerous perhaps less important differences here and there: OVF vs EVF (I don't have any problem with either one), features, user interface and ergonomics, available accessories, etc.. Do they make a difference in practice? Maybe; it depends on the individual. I like the fact that that most buttons on my Sony camera can be customized. I have programmed them to the settings that I use most. Do Canon and Nikon mid level cameras have this feature to this extent? I like the small and compact size but some people prefer bulkier and heavier cameras. A compact mirrorless camera like A6000 doesn't look as intimidating as big black DSLR on the street to the passing people. I don't get tired of carrying it around for long distances as much as I used to get tired when I had a Nikon system (D300, etc.). A less exhausted photographer has better chance of catching the good composition when it comes around.

Drawbacks: the A6000's AF is not as good and reliable as the Nikon D300 I used to have, particularly in low light. I hope Sony will soon overcome the gap between in regards to AF. Fortunately, the focus peaking and focus magnifier function help a lot in manual focusing.

So at then end, you need to decide what's important to you that makes you want to make the switch. Keep in mind that when you switch the system, the camera interface changes and you may need sometime to get used to the new interface.

The 80D sensor is very close to the performance of the Sony sensor, so I wouldn't consider IQ or DR to really be part of the consideration here. In order to completely switch systems, I would think there would have be a very definitive reason to make that switch, not just a gut feel or desire to try something new.

Personally, I think a better wider lens is probably going to change how you shoot with the 80D than a complete system overhaul, it would help at car shows, etc. 24mm on a crop isn't wide at all and limits how you shoot vehicles, given their dimensions and your perspective to them when shooting.

If you get a great discount on Sony such that you can buy it and try it out for a month or two, then resell it at no loss or even a gain, then do that. It would give you time to evaluation at hardly any monetary detriment, something others don't have the luxury to do.

Derek1387 wrote in post #18324652
Found out today that I have a very large discount through work on Sony DSLRs...

Right now I shoot with a Canon 80D, and have a Tamron 24-70 and F/4 70-200. Thinking about selling it to switch over to the Sony setup.

Most of my shooting is automotive and stills (autos), and having the 4K video option would be nice, even though i dont shoot video (yet).

Looking at the 6300/6500, or possibly the A7/A7 II....

Any particular recommendations on either, and as to why? I dont feel i NEED a full frame, and it would shoot slower, but....why would I want it, if i went with the A7?

Any decent lenses out there for not a TON of cash, as I am seeing that Sony lenses are priced considerably higher than the comparable Canon.

Thanks all!

I envy you.

Just switch to Sony. There are so many innovations in the sony camp right now compared to the boring products from other makers. You have the beautiful Batis lenses from Zeiss, new emount lenses, new A7 bodies and now A9.

I've switched from a Canon to Sony last 2013 when I've bought my RX1. Four years later, I still haven't upgraded.

It's the final result that matters, and quite frankly the best images from a 1d series over song's best, one cannot tell which produced which.

sony4ever wrote in post #18337764
I envy you.

Just switch to Sony. There are so many innovations in the sony camp right now compared to the boring products from other makers. You have the beautiful Batis lenses from Zeiss, new emount lenses, new A7 bodies and now A9.

I've switched from a Canon to Sony last 2013 when I've bought my RX1. Four years later, I still haven't upgraded.

true, sony keeps photography interesting, when I had 5DIII most of the time I left it at home, i got tired of carrying it around, and people looking at my weirdly.

Sony a7rII is a lot more stealthy, people don't pay attention to it, its great!

raminolta wrote in post #18329912
I donlt understand why the other responder (Ah-keong) keeps talking about what he personally prefers or like than trying to help the original poster in making his decision! OK, I will try my best to be unbiased here; lol.

So at then end, you need to decide what's important to you that makes you want to make the switch. Keep in mind that when you switch the system, the camera interface changes and you may need sometime to get used to the new interface.

Exactly, as you can see, at the end of the day, it is the personal preference of the user that would lead him/her to decide which "tool" is preferred. I was trying to explain how I made up my decision based on my own preferences.

These are all tools. Some prefer Canon, some prefer Nikon, some prefer Sony, etc etc etc.
For example, I like Sony's a6000, a6300, a6500 for travel.
I hope the OP weigh the pros / cons of each "system" before deciding.
At the end of the day, he must feel at ease using the "tool".

And as such, this preference is personal....

raminolta wrote in post #18329912
I donlt understand why the other responder (Ah-keong) keeps talking about what he personally prefers or like than trying to help the original poster in making his decision!

Sometimes you may find yourself aligning with someone on the board, in how or what they shoot, so their opinions matter more sometimes than some objective bullet-point pro/con list between different camera systems. There are a ton of review sites that do that already. As long as you always remember that people projecting which bodies to buy are issuing their opinions, it should provide for a fruitful and respectful discourse.

For example immediately following the comment you made above....

I certainly respect your opinion on why Sony is preferable however, I couldn't use small Sony bodies, I had a heck of a time with the SL1, even though I really enjoyed it. I don't like contorting my fingers to hit buttons and dials. I like the substantive nature of larger DSLRs. This is one reason I won't buy Sony or any mirrorless system at this point in my life.

OP,

What is your definition of "large discount?" 30% 50% ??

What you may find is that using primes or native zooms in the a6300/6500 will allow you to lug the camera with no "pain in the ass" effort. This is where you'll find a smaller body to be appealing.

The 80D is not a big camera at all. It's just slightly larger than a micro 4/3 GH3/4. I find the 80D with 10-22 UWA to be silly light in weight!! I use that setup often as a walk around.

If you get a big discount on Sony I think there is no harm in testing it out. I would assume you'll like the small compact size for long photo shoots of cars. You will never know if you like or dislike sony until you try.

I do find that when I shoot a large event be it humans or cars I do appreciate the light weight of my fuji gear but seems in the mirrorless world battery life sucks!!! Be prepared to have a pocket full of spare batteries for fuji or sony.

I'm taking a minimal approach to my mirrorless system but I am finding with my 3 lenses I have a wide range of coverage within my style of photography. I'll be adding more primes to my fuji system.

If I was in your situation bare minimum I'd be buying a 25mm Batis f/2, 55 batis and 16-35 f/4 UWA with an A7ii or A7Rmk2. That combo will very likely be as large and heavy as your current 80D!!! Add up the cost of this setup. What you must determine is if you like Sony files and smaller lighter system with terrible battery life. There are pros/cons to every camera system!!!

***Just a thought*** Please consider buying a small"ish" Canon 6D. That alone will give you different "Focal lengths" using a full frame sensor with your current lenses you own. Spending $1399 for a new 6d will give you an entirely different "look" with your current lenses. $1399 is still cheaper than buying into a totally different camera system from scratch.

If sony had the identical lens lineup of Fuji's small light weight mirrorless system I still prefer the ergonomics and logical dial setup of the camera body. This is my preference in lens lineup, fuji rendering, intuitive dial system. We are all adaptable to any system really.......

One thing to consider is how Sony renders the realworld. Look at every single Sony ad on the internet or magazine and you'll find that the images will have a punchy vibrant colours. This is the characteristics of Sony. You already know how Canon looks What I am finding is the Fuji system has a totally different look that is known to be quite pleasing to the eyes in the photography world both colours and how fuji captures life.

Consider $$$ but most importantly if you like Sony ergonomics and the look of the files.....