Canon 80D to Sony ?

There is a lot of excitement about the A9 speed of focus and its shooting frame rate, and rapid refresh of the 120 fps LED in the viewfinder. But that is an E mount camera from Sony. Hard to say at this point what -- if any -- improvements in the A9 would materialize in the A-mount cameras from Sony.

A couple of considerations in the A-mount offering...

1. unlike the E-mount cameras with sensor-to-viewfinder EVF, the A-mount cameras rely on a half-silvered mirror to deflect some light upward to the eyepiece, while the rest of the light goes through the reflex mirror to the sensor -- but that means that 0.5EV of light is NOT reaching the sensor. Like any pellicle mirror camera, it loses some sensitivity to light (striking film or striking sensor) by virtue of that splitting of light.
   
2. there is considerable believe within the industry that Sony is concentrating its efforts on the E-mount world, and new lens designs for A-mount cameras have not been introduced -- by Sony nor even by some third party aftermarket lens brands -- as a result.
   

Wilt wrote in post #18344445
There is a lot of excitement about the A9 speed of focus and its shooting frame rate, and rapid refresh of the 120 fps LED in the viewfinder. But that is an E mount camera from Sony. Hard to say at this point what -- if any -- improvements in the A9 would materialize in the A-mount cameras from Sony.

A couple of considerations in the A-mount offering...

1. unlike the E-mount cameras with sensor-to-viewfinder EVF, the A-mount cameras rely on a half-silvered mirror to deflect some light upward to the eyepiece, while the rest of the light goes through the reflex mirror to the sensor -- but that means that 0.5EV of light is NOT reaching the sensor. Like any pellicle mirror camera, it loses some sensitivity to light (striking film or striking sensor) by virtue of that splitting of light.
   
2. there is considerable believe within the industry that Sony is concentrating its efforts on the E-mount world, and new lens designs for A-mount cameras have not been introduced -- by Sony nor even by some third party aftermarket lens brands -- as a result.
   

so? you make it sound like that is a bad thing. E-mount is the future for sony, all their big money makers are E-mount.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #18344451
so? you make it sound like that is a bad thing. E-mount is the future for sony, all their big money makers are E-mount.

YOUR SPIN (as usual) is negative. I am merely stating design differences in an objective and scientific flashion (with zero opinion or speculation of my own) for the OP to consider.

The 80D is not so hot itself! Per DPReview:

"JPEG Performance

"When shooting in daylight using default JPEG settings, color is a tiny bit less saturated than in the 70D, specifically, in the yellows and reds. The same thing can be seen when compared to our color benchmark, the 5D Mark III: there's a little less yellow, which affects the tone of the reds, yellows, oranges and greens. This, in turn, has an impact on skin tones, which end up being less flattering than we're used to from Canon.

"The reds are less muddy than we're seeing from the Nikon D7200, though, and less yellow-tinged than the Sony a6300's output.

"In terms of white balance, the auto setting leaves much of the warmth from the tungsten light source. There's an optional 'AWB W' option if you want the camera to make more of an effort to cancel-out this warmth, which is useful for video shooting.

"When it comes to JPEG sharpening, the 80D's algorithm appears to be slightly more aggressive than the 70D, with sharpening halos showing up around the black text on the grey background. Compared to the a6300, (which, thanks to its lack of AA filter, is capturing a little more detail if we look at the Raw files), the Canon isn't revealing the same level of fine detail.

"Noise reduction has very little impact at base ISO. But by ISO 400 some fine detail is being smoothed away. At 3200, noise is still being kept in check but at the cost of noticeable detail loss. By ISO 12,800, noise reduction is very aggressive and wipes out much more detail than the Nikon D7200 or the probable class leader, the Sony a6300.

"Raw Performance

"The lack of moiré, compared to the Sony a6300 suggests the presence of an anti-aliasing filter, but it's still capturing a pretty good amount of detail.

"Raw noise performance is broadly the same as the EOS 70D, even at at the highest ISOs, when compared at a common size, suggesting there's no down-side to the increase in resolution. This leaves it lagging a little behind the Nikon D7200 and maybe as much as a stop behind the Sony a6300."

Lest you accuse me of favoritism to Canon, let me also show DPReview comparison against Sony sensors, which clearly better the 80D that the OP already owns...

1) Anything JPG related has everything to do with the picture styles selected, in-camera settings, and post processing... If they took the raw and used DPP or some other raw converter, then again they are in full control of sharpening, color, etc.

2) DPReview has a habit of doing a review and creating test files using outdated 3rd party tools, because it takes a while for those 3rd party software groups to get their hands on new camera raw files and adjust accordingly.

3) Also I see nothing really negative in any of those comments, they are typical comments you would see with post-processed jpg files either in-camera or after the fact. For example, what noise reduction? DPP's noise reduction? Their own home-grown settings in LR? ACR perhaps? Wiping away detail has everything to do with software, not hardware. NR doesn't occur at the raw level.

We also know that the only ISO advantage the 80D has over the other APS-C offerings is in its low exposure noise at ISO 400 or less. You can push shadows much farther with the 80D. However it is about even with the 70D at higher ISOs, and a bit behind the 7D2.

All this being said, it would be more interesting to take an image from each camera at the same settings on the same scene, and process them for a large print, and see if you can see a difference.

But the article with comparison data from which I took the previous examples, clearly stated,
"Exposure Latitude
In this test we look to see how tolerant of pushing exposure the 80D's Raw files are....

"Raw Dynamic Range
ISO Invariance... "

"Summing up
Our Raw dynamic range tests appear to confirm the success of this major change in Canon's sensor design. The results don't look quite as impressive as its Sony-based contemporaries but the reduction in noise contribution should provide an appreciable real-world benefit when it comes to protecting highlights without adding too much noise in the shadows."

Switch to Sony and sell me your 80D!

We knew at the time of the 80d release that out was just somewhere around 1 stop DR behind the best Sony had to offer at the time. The DR numbers bore that out, I believe.

What's interesting is that I've yet to see anyone mention manufacturer's signature "looks" in the RAW/JPG files.

My limited experience in Sony still allowed me to see the "Sony look" as I played with an A6000. Canon still has the same looking colours as it has had for many years. One difference I see is the newer fresh mk2's lens lineup has a more digital micro contrast sharper file over the older lenses like a 24L, 35L, 85Lmk2, 85 f/1.8, 17-40L, 24-70L f/2.8 mk1, 70-200 f/2.8 L mk1 to name a bunch of older designed canon lenses.

Now that I've used Fuji long enough to get a good feel of how images render. Fuji has completely different looking files as my Canon 5dmk2, 5dmk3.

I think the OP should take a good look at both ergonomics of a system and how the files look.

I'll have to say I'm familiar with Canon and the files it produces. I do prefer the looks of my fuji files over Sony but that's my personal views.

I think the whole point of the OP asking the question is all about $$$$$$$ discounts.

When I had Nikon, the images seemed quite colder in color temperature (white tone) and much more contrasty comapring to the images I get out of my Sony camera: warmer in color and less contrasty. However, these are just defult look and one can always work an image to tune it to his preferance. I do however prefer the default look of Sony images to start with.

I have now switched from A6000 to A7r ii and this has narrowed the difference between a Sony system and a canon system in terms of size and weight. A6000 and its lenses were really compact while A7r ii and FE lenses are in general heavier and bigger. I still apprecaite the effort Sony has pout to keep the size and weight as low as possible. Even a few hundred grams of less weight can make a difference in long walks and hikes.

I say rent the Sony you are interested in , and try it. You will be impressed with the Sony. Heck rent them both and try em.