Canon 5D4 to Sony mirrorless?

As for the OP i would recommend keeping your 5d4 and maybe just upgrading your phone. Any mirrorless is still going to be more cumbersome than a phone. I normally always carry a satchel so a fuji or sony paired with a pancake /small lens would be very easy to always have on hand.
However if your just posting pics on social media or just taking casual pics for yourself to remember etc then i would look more into a new phone

Charlie wrote in post #18786155
I havent ran into that specific scenario, but have left my second card at home on accident (thank goodness for dual cards). with that given scenario, you can still shoot, but get an annoying second card blinky that shows no second/primary card. You can shoot with either card in the slot missing, and when working properly, there's a visual indicator showing two cards writing at once, when only one card, then only shows one card writing. It's pretty obvious when you make that mistake.

Thanks Charlie
I did expect there would be something but not having such was curious.

Charlie wrote in post #18786155
I havent ran into that specific scenario, but have left my second card at home on accident (thank goodness for dual cards). with that given scenario, you can still shoot, but get an annoying second card blinky that shows no second/primary card. You can shoot with either card in the slot missing, and when working properly, there's a visual indicator showing two cards writing at once, when only one card, then only shows one card writing. It's pretty obvious when you make that mistake.

I have 2-3 SD cards in my car just in case. Keeps me sane...have grabbed my camera without a card too often...my excuse is old age

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18785161
OYAG!

I told you about the SOS and REI methods last year in a retort of one of your posts so you might say I fully understand these things and don't need to be reminded of them, did you forgot who informed you?

Yea I'm sure the 5D4 is an improvement over the 5D3 alright, it would want to be after a FIVE year gap. Still bet even you eagle eyes couldn't tell the difference if you saw two shots side by side. I never mentioned the OP in my comment, I did read (and replied) much earlier in this thread. It is always right to ask questions, that is a great way of learning until someone comes along spreading disinformation, luckily others can be quick to respond...

Glad you are putting in the time to get better with manual focus, it is fast once you get the hang of it, & easy on a mirrorless to boot.

Must be just me so as I'll always ask to change the lighting if I need to & usually the venue are really accommodating in that request, I do ask nicely. Plus I don't seem to have to shoot in all that difficult lighting even at dark weddings I can get good 12800ISO QI out of the Fuji's + I know I'm not alone here. We have so much good DR left even up there the images are good to go even with a little pushing about but really you should be getting it close in camera.

I sit down and drink coffee & look at all those wonderful images taken over the month with my fellow camera buddies alright, non of them could give a crap what camera you used & mention 'if only you used a FF camera it would have been better' in jest LOL ;> Some of us do need, from time to time, the ultimate in IQ & that is why we shoot with a [much] bigger sensor, but for most things it's the little mirrorless that we somehow keep delivering images with. Of course like all things YMMV.

Yea, the X-T3 is great, but I found the X-PRO2 to be right on at events but like I intimated above I only have to go up to 12800ISO every now and again & those files are great to deliver so I'm entirely not bothered by another system that can shoot 'clean' images at 52600 or whatever. I simply don't need that level to shoot with, after looking through years of image data such a tiny amount was shot at anything above 12800. 'Lucky' me!

If you are using flash at events you should look at using it as a shutter and letting your shutter slow down so you can keep a lower ISO and let lots of the available light in to create and capture the mood + you can use a nice aperture like F/4 for more depth of focus.

I'd not be going back to a mirrored body for events for any reason, it's so much easier with two (or three) small mirrorless cameras with all their built in tech helping out when needed. Having said that chasing gear in an effort to make your images better is a destiny to failure, there is plenty to get right before but it's so much easier to say my camera can't then I can't. Anyone honest enough with themselves will see that. New gear will probably make you go shoot more though & the more you shoot the better you get.

What is OYAG?

Thanks everyone. Great feedback as usual! Throw in my lowered desire of photography in general lately...and a divorce. So I'm hurting on cash anyway. Could be time for a firesale instead of moving to a totally new system. You know I'll miss it 6 montts from now, though.

Has anyone had any specific issues with Canon and their gear?

My advice.... if you can't get what you want from shooting the 5D4, going to the Sony isn't going to change all that much. I shoot Sony Mirrorless... love it. But it isn't making me a better photographer. Save your money and use it for a trip to somewhere like IceLand.... that will change your photography a heck of a lot more. Do more - Spend less....

Croasdail wrote in post #18809708
My advice.... if you can't get what you want from shooting the 5D4, going to the Sony isn't going to change all that much. I shoot Sony Mirrorless... love it. But it isn't making me a better photographer. Save your money and use it for a trip to somewhere like IceLand.... that will change your photography a heck of a lot more. Do more - Spend less....

Ibis is lacking in my 5dmk4. There has been situations where going MF and focus peaking is great with the sony. Also ibis is nice to have.

Croasdail wrote in post #18809708
My advice.... if you can't get what you want from shooting the 5D4, going to the Sony isn't going to change all that much. I shoot Sony Mirrorless... love it. But it isn't making me a better photographer. Save your money and use it for a trip to somewhere like IceLand.... that will change your photography a heck of a lot more. Do more - Spend less....

That eye AF though!

I will have to admit that since I have gone with Sony I shoot manual far more than I ever did with my canon gear, not because the automates in Sony are bad, but because going manual is so easy with the EVF adding focus peaking and real time understanding of what the exposure is. That said the 5 grand I have invested in Sony bodies... would be a great trip. But I do enjoy my Sony cameras far more than I thought I would.

mystik610 wrote in post #18809743
That eye AF though!

Not long ago, I Googled for photos of sporting events, and only about half of the photos even had an eye visible to lock onto...the photo contained no visible eye on the primary target (e.g guy running with football) or even other athletes close by the primary target (e.g. tacklers and blockers nearby).

I found my earlier post...In an October 2018 Google Search on 'sports photography' and qualified the search for Images.

• Out of 25 images of athletes in action, (being conservative in the assessment of 'eyes visible') fully 1/3 of the shots did not have the key athlete's (or someone very close by about in the same plane to serve as a surrogate focus target) eyes visible.
  
• Then out of the next 31 images of athletes, half (16) had no visible eyes on the key athlete or nearby surrogate on the same plane of focus.
  

Wilt wrote in post #18809909
Not long ago, I Googled for photos of sporting events, and only about half of the photos even had an eye visible to lock onto...the photo contained no visible eye on the primary target (e.g guy running with football) or even other athletes close by the primary target (e.g. tacklers and blockers nearby).

I found my earlier post...In an October 2018 Google Search on 'sports photography' and qualified the search for Images.

• Out of 25 images of athletes in action, (being conservative in the assessment of 'eyes visible') fully 1/3 of the shots did not have the key athlete's (or someone very close by about in the same plane to serve as a surrogate focus target) eyes visible.
  
• Then out of the next 31 images of athletes, half (16) had no visible eyes on the key athlete or nearby surrogate on the same plane of focus.
  

So in view of that sample, I have an inherent 'so what' reaction about the wonderous nature of 'eye focus'

Because not everyone shoots sports and because I shoot portraits and it's been a very important feature for me.

If a camera can get an eye in focus i wouldnt worry about it getting a helmet in focus.

While there's a lot more to photography than portraiture, taking photographs of people makes up a pretty substantial subset of photography as a whole.....family photography, photojournalism, wedding/event photography, posed portraiture, etc etc. Eye-AF is a pretty significant feature here as it ensures greater focus accuracy, and with the newer firmware updates, ensures that you get a higher percentage of keepers in situations where you're trying to document key moments/events as they happen and your subjects are in motion.

latest Sony AF firmware in action:

elitejp wrote in post #18809950
If a camera can get an eye in focus i wouldnt worry about it getting a helmet in focus.

The camera FINDS an eye (or a face) to focus on, it has no programming for helmet recognition. Plus, in a field of eyes/helmets, there is the additional ambiguity of which one to focus on.

Eye focus certainly is a benefit for portraiture, as one need not manually select an AF point offset from frame center, nor do you have to use center AF point with recompose error...you merely let the camera find the eye. Even family shots, if you line everyone up and they all face the camera and say 'cheese', eye focus has value. Just not as much value in sports photography.

My portraiture days are mostly behind me, and apart from photography during travel abroad, it seems most of my shooting is of grandkids playing sports, and unfortunately one of the photographically most demanding are the lacrosse games where eyes are hidden in shadows of the helmet even when the player's head is turned in your direction (rarely). Same comment for ice hockey.