Canon 5D4 to Sony mirrorless?

In fact i dont believe any af system has programming for focusing on peoples bodies, trees, buildings or stars etc. So that wasnt the point. But if a focusing system is capable of keeping up with eyes then im sure the camera has a capable af system (such as the speed of aquisition or focus) to keep up with bigger objects.

In any case the 5d4 is a very good camera and i think you should have a very good reason to switch.

elitejp wrote in post #18810126
In fact i dont believe any af system has programming for focusing on peoples bodies, trees, buildings or stars etc. So that wasnt the point. But if a focusing system is capable of keeping up with eyes then im sure the camera has a capable af system (such as the speed of aquisition or focus) to keep up with bigger objects.

In any case the 5d4 is a very good camera and i think you should have a very good reason to switch.

Actually if you read up on the new live tracking AF int he a6400 and coming via firmware (also shown in that video I posted), that system is able to do AI based object detection by recognizing and remembering patterns, colors, brightness in the initial acquisition and using that data to track your subject in the frame

Similar concept as eye-AF where it's actively following an identified object vs trying to predict where some random beam of light is going to go.

Sony is killing it

The main reason is the weight and bulk. I took a quick vacation last summer, away from the car all day, and that was the turning point for me. Nowhere to put the thing so I was carrying it all day. And the 24-70 lens, whew. The other reason is just not using it much; likely a hobby I just wore out.

Ascenta wrote in post #18817035
The main reason is the weight and bulk. I took a quick vacation last summer, away from the car all day, and that was the turning point for me. Nowhere to put the thing so I was carrying it all day. And the 24-70 lens, whew. The other reason is just not using it much; likely a hobby I just wore out.

Good enough IQ in phones made changed how I look at my camera gear. I'll only bring the real camera when I want to be creative and make real photos, for snapshots the phone is fine.

fi20100 wrote in post #18829188
Good enough IQ in phones made changed how I look at my camera gear. I'll only bring the real camera when I want to be creative and make real photos, for snapshots the phone is fine.

A couple who's wedding I photographed recently, was sold a camera by Best Buy, for their trip. They had never used a DSLR, and it was a T6i I recall. They were taking better and more photos with their phone, and apparently abandoned the camera before I thought to suggest that.

Phones are not only good enough, but far better than something someone isn't ready to use. A vacation is not the time to learn to use a camera.

mdvaden wrote in post #18829333
A couple who's wedding I photographed recently, was sold a camera by Best Buy, for their trip. They had never used a DSLR, and it was a T6i I recall. They were taking better and more photos with their phone, and apparently abandoned the camera before I thought to suggest that.

Phones are not only good enough, but far better than something someone isn't ready to use. A vacation is not the time to learn to use a camera.

That's true. And many don't have the time or motivation to go through the learning curve to start getting everything out of the power of a DSLR.

mdvaden wrote in post #18829333
A couple who's wedding I photographed recently, was sold a camera by Best Buy, for their trip. They had never used a DSLR, and it was a T6i I recall. They were taking better and more photos with their phone, and apparently abandoned the camera before I thought to suggest that.

Phones are not only good enough, but far better than something someone isn't ready to use. A vacation is not the time to learn to use a camera.

Really interesting things are happening with smartphones cam too with regards to the computational capabilities of these phones combined with multiple camera systems.

I.e. the new Nokia phone is using technology developed for the l16, but uses 5 cameras instead of 16. Sony also entered a partnership with light to develop exmor sensors for their systems.

Our big ILC cameras could truly become obsolete one sooner than we expect.

I am shooting with BOTH Canon DSLR (7D2 and 6D2) and Sony APSC mirrorless (right now the A6500 but, I expect that I will add a second body in the future). If Sony puts the features I want into their A6700/A7000 (or whatever they are going to call the A6500 replacement) I will pick up one of those cameras. If Sony doesn't bring enough to the table to justify the price of the A6700/A7000 I will revert to the A6400 which except for the lack of IBIS is a pretty darn nice little camera. The price and form factor are great.

As far as lenses for the Sony APSC cameras, Sony has two really nice lenses: the 50mm f/1.8 OSS and the 85mm f/1.8 which is a full frame lens but is of a small size that works nicely with the diminutive APSC A6xxx cameras.

However, third party manufacturers are really fleshing out the lens selection for APSC cameras. Sigma has introduced some great primes such as the 16mm f/1.4, the 30mm f/1.4 and the really excellent 56mm f/1.4 which is a cracker of a portrait lens for the Sony APSC cameras. There are other companies that are developing APSC E-Mount lenses (both manual focus and auto focus) for Sony cameras. I have a Samyang 12mm f/2 lens which is a great piece of glass...

The selection of Sigma APSC lenses are not only of excellent quality, they are relatively light weight and fairly inexpensive (compared with Sony full frame lenses).

Finally, there is a plethora of manual focus lenses in the M-42 mount and other MF mounts that can be adapted quite well with the Sony APSC cameras. I love the Meyer Optik Gorlitz Orestor 135mm f/2.8 lens. I often use this lens for portraits on my A6500 combined with a Kipon 0.7x M-42 to E-Mount Focal Reducer. This is a nice combination...

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …0-%20Copy-X2.jpg&lb=1&s=A

I've made the switch myself from 5D4 to Sony A7r3 a year ago, and haven't looked back. Of course, I still have that "brand loyalty" feeling. At the same time, Sony helps me take better photos. With Canon, I had 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 35 sigma, 85 1.2 II. With Sony I now shoot with 12-24 f/4 GM, 24-70 GM, 100-400 GM, 35 1.4 Zeiss, and 90 macro. The eye autofocus is spot-on, and overall I feel that Sony is better with just pure shooting perspective. On the other hand, Canon had that feeling about the camera that it just worked. The software was plain simple, unlike Sony's confusing menus.

In my opinion, both systems are great. It's more about what makes you a better photographer, plain simple.

Well, I finally decided to unload ALL my gear. Thanks to everyone so far who expressed interest and purchased. Only the camera and 24-70 remain.

I'm sure I will be back in the future with a scaled-down setup. Hopefully something that will motivate me more to carry my camera instead of just the iPhone.

But in the end, I just need the cash right now because life happened

Good luck with it. I will never go back from mirrorless. Shot the ACC baseball tournament I loved having a lot less weight. Took a while to appreciate the platform, but once I got over the learning curve, can't imaging doing it any other way. Hope it works out as well for yourself.

Sold my 5D4 as well. Some of these unplanned situations bring about a forced but hopefully positive change. I've been pleased with the Canon M3 now M6. I liked the results using the SLR yet having a much smaller rig is so much easier to deal with.

Best wishes for a pathway that brings new and improving directions.

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'

And yet if you shoot wrestling, basketball, gymnastics, soccer, baseball, lacrosse, baseball, field hockey, swimming, skiing, skating, tennis, track and field.... the eyes of the subject are generally visible. If you define sports as those where they wear helmets.... sure. But those other sports, having the face or better eye in focus, is a good thing. Aides to getting to that goal are all helpful.

I'm kinda surprised anyone would view having the option to have the eye captured in focus is a "so what" Particularly if you do events, weddings, performance, street photography, travel photography... having the the face in perfect focus isn't a "so what" kind of thing. And its particularly important in sports as well.

Having peoples faces in perfect focus may not be critical in your genre of photography, but even in sports it is super important.

Croasdail wrote in post #18866865
And yet if you shoot wrestling, basketball, gymnastics, soccer, baseball, lacrosse, baseball, field hockey, swimming, skiing, skating, tennis, track and field.... the eyes of the subject are generally visible. If you define sports as those where they wear helmets.... sure. But those other sports, having the face or better eye in focus, is a good thing. Aides to getting to that goal are all helpful.

I'm kinda surprised anyone would view having the option to have the eye captured in focus is a "so what" Particularly if you do events, weddings, performance, street photography, travel photography... having the the face in perfect focus isn't a "so what" kind of thing. And its particularly important in sports as well.

Having peoples faces in perfect focus may not be critical in your genre of photography, but even in sports it is super important.

With most sports compositions, you can't judge the focus of the eye: you're looking more for the whole body to be in focus. I think to this day, the most controversial call that was captured on camera was "the hand of god" soccer goal Deigo Mardona scored. This was also in the 80s...when photographers had to rely more on intuition with manual settings: IE, having a safe aperture and shutter/ISO is when your subject has acceptable focus.