Will a long time 5D shooter like the Sony A7r3?

Fuji is easily cheaper yet you could also consider a sony a7iii if you want to save money. As for the weight of the differing cameras you will just need to figure that out for what you want to carry.
But sony color science and pp shouldnt be a consideration. Honestly i think this this color science argument has only become an argument on the web because there really wasnt anything else diehard canon fans could come up with about canon that they could say was superior to all other brands.

Dont get me wrong the 5d4 is an awesome camera, and even canons new ff mirrorless options might be a good choice for you except for the lens sizes. But color science is more of a made up story than a science.

AeroSmith wrote in post #18862280
Hi guys! OK, still doing tons of research. Still shooting with my 5D. It is pretty freaking heavy for hiking. I do go to the gym just to work my legs so I can carry a pack and gear when I hike...

I just bought a Fujifilm XF 60 f/2.4 R macro for my daughter's birthday to use on her Fujifilm X-T1. It's her second lens along with an XF 23/1.4 R.

And that got me thinking about how much fun that Fujifilm camera was to shoot with all of its analog dials. It also go me thinking about how I almost liked the files and colors from that camera as much as the files and colors from my 5D4...almost. And then I started thinking that the SONY files might require a bigger change in my PP workflow than I'd be comfortable with. SONY is not known for their color science. Fujifilm's is, by my memory, quite good.

Further, the A7r3 with a SONY 24-105/4 is close to $4200! While $4,032 gets me the following Fujifilm kit: Fujifilm X-T3 body, XF 10-24/4 R OIS lens, XF 35/2 WR lens, XF 80/2.8 WR OIS Macro lens, a spare battery, a nice 64 gig SDXC II memory card, a free Fujifilm 64 gig card, two B+W CPs and two B+W ND filters. Granted the X-T3 is probably more comparable to the A73 in terms of resolution. The A73 is about $800 less than the A7r3. But the good SONY lenses are expensive! At least 20% more than Canon's and Fujifilm's....

Finally, moving to SONY might save me 7 ounces right there on my shoulder. But moving to Fujifilm would save me a pound (assuming the 10-24/4, 15-36mm FF equivalent, is mounted). And that might also make a big difference when it comes time to mounting the camera on my very lightweight Gitzo 0 series Traveler tripod.

Entropy may win out and I may just stick with the 5D. But I'm giving Fujifilm another serious look.

if you're going to cherry pick and have different standards, you can really manipulate anything.

that said, best if you go with fuji since you're daughter already has fuji. If my sons/daughters ever shoot, guaranteed it will be sony for family sharing.

if you want inexpensive and small lenses for sony FF, there are a lot of options and growing at a much faster rate than anyone due to third party. Tamron and Samyang have great third party lenses. Voigtlander if you do MF. Sony has some small lenses as well. You're comparing a sony 24-105 with fuji 10-24, and some primes.... it's a real sideways comparison. On top of that, if you're looking to change systems, you gotta consider that the system is no longer the same, and you may need to get out of your comfort zone. Find gear that's stronger suited to the system, see it's offerings, even consider mixing it up. Unlike canon and fuji, you can easily shoot full frame and use crop lenses on Sony's system, the camera automatically adjusts crop factor.

For instance, I find that in video mode, I'm ok shooting APS-C mode, so a 16-50 pancake makes a ton of sense when shooting from gimbal. When back to stills, I may switch up to the 28-75 f2.8/ 28 f2/ 35 f2.8/ 50 f1.8 and generally a massive DOF difference.

it's a different ecosystem

lenses are sort of affordable, here's my psuedo travel kit, I probably wont travel with all the lenses, but I certainly could
CV 21mm f3.5 $800
FE 35 f2.8 $450
FE 50 f1.8 $150
FE 28 f2 $350
Tam 28-75 f2.8 $700
FE 16-50 PZ OSS $130

the lenses themselves arent very expensive, and all very nice in their own way.

21 + 35 make the perfect two tiny belt pouch lenses kit.

28, 50 is nice for dual cameras on the peak 5L

28-75 is nice by itself

28 or 16-50 both nice for gimbal video work. Sometimes zoom is useful, but I generally prefer the bokeh? With clear image zoom, the 28 behaves like a 28-70 f2-4. The 16-50 like a 24-105 f4-8. I'm waiting for Tamron's 17-28 F2.8, might be the perfect gimbal lens, internal focusing, f2.8 is ok, and smaller than other zooms in the range.

this is not to say I dont have gigantic FF lenses, I certainly do. I just dont care for them most of the time. If I wanted the very large aperture look, I can certainly get it. Just doesnt mean a whole lot when doing video. You probably dont want that super thin DOF for video, it's kind of a different animal. I'de be ok with a wide angle with wide aperture, but longer focal length and wide aperture is not super useful for video. I'll occasionally use it, but it's not super useful.

The only way to know for sure is to buy both the Fuji and the Sony. Keep whatever works for you and return the other one within 30 days and get your money back.

elitejp wrote in post #18862324
But color science is more of a made up story than a science.

I have read this before concerning the difference in color science on the Sonys. It has been one of those items that has held me back from considering Sony.

2 weeks ago, I had the opportunity to shoot the A9 in the exact situation I would be using it. Brought the files home and inadvertently apply my preset that I use to the images. Despite it being a Sony file and not a Canon, the resulting images were very, very nice. I liked them better than the color tone out of my Canon.

I agree that they might take a little extra tweaking, but it's not where near as big a deal as presented online.

All I can suggest, go and rent one for a week or two and take it to a hike.

Then, it is you that decides and not the fanboys here...

AeroSmith wrote in post #18862280
Further, the A7r3 with a SONY 24-105/4 is close to $4200! While $4,032 gets me the following Fujifilm kit: Fujifilm X-T3 body, XF 10-24/4 R OIS lens, XF 35/2 WR lens, XF 80/2.8 WR OIS Macro lens, a spare battery, a nice 64 gig SDXC II memory card, a free Fujifilm 64 gig card, two B+W CPs and two B+W ND filters. Granted the X-T3 is probably more comparable to the A73 in terms of resolution. The A73 is about $800 less than the A7r3. But the good SONY lenses are expensive! At least 20% more than Canon's and Fujifilm's....

Canon's RF lenses make Sony glass look like a bargain lol.

It seems like camera makers are increasingly pushing prices higher and higher to cover the decline of the entry level market for gear....which is a disservice to those who are staying loyal to standalone cameras but either don't shoot professionally, or aren't made out of money.

I've been increasingly recommending Fuji to people even though I shoot Sony because I think Fuji really offers the most when it comes to price, size, and performance. My second shooter if a Fuji guy...and I'm really impressed with the output of those cameras...also the quality of fuji glass is great without breaking the bank. We're so used to aps-c glass being not so great because Canon, Nikon, and now Sony are more interested in treating aps-c as an upgrade path to FF rather than a true alternative to full frame.

AngelofDepth wrote in post #18862477
The only way to know for sure is to buy both the Fuji and the Sony. Keep whatever works for you and return the other one within 30 days and get your money back.

30 days really isn't enough to evaluate a new system. I recommend buying one used body and lens from each system, using them for a few months, then decide. Yeah, you have to sink some cash into it, but you'll get it back when you sell if you didn't overpay.

I converted from the 5D-II to the A7Riii about 6 months ago - here are my observations:

EVF - Unsure how sports shooters would handle the framerate for fast moving objects, but for my usage (portraiture), it works perfectly, and being able to chimp in the bright sunlight rocks.

Eye Follow Focus - Just wow. It just works, and works well. If you shoot portraits, it hits focus every single time.

General focus - A little hit and miss. Adapted glass doesn't focus all that well, and the WYSIWYG EVF means that it is trying to focus with the aperture set to the final setting, (unlike a DSLR where focus is done with it wide open) which means even Sony lenses suffer when focusing in low light. It would be nice to have an "Aperture un-preview" button to assist fucusing.

Battery - I took nearly 400 shots today at a shoot that lasted about 90 minutes, and the battery was still showing 82% when I finished. And I have found I nearly always charge the camera via USB which also allows you to charge it on the go either in the car or a power pack in the camera bag between locations if need be. The A7iii doesn't come with a dediated battery charger, but the A7Riii does. Having said that, I used it once and don't even know where it is.

Size - Despite the fact I moved from a 5D-II to the Sony, I have not even noticed its size. It is just right for me.

Silent shooting - This is plain weird. I have only played with it as it doesn't trigger flash, but it is weird when you forget you have it set and put the camera to your eye and press the shutter.... and nothing happens. So you press and hold the shutter again, and again nothing happens. Then you realise you have actually taken 40 odd photos.

Menues - They say they are confusing, but once you have set the camera up, you don't need to play with most of them.

Shutter - it took me a while to get used to not having the big old mirror slapping around. You get a feel for it and know when you need to change settings, but the A7RIII only has the mechanical shutter for tactile feedback which has no relationship to the actual exposure length. This just means you have to pay attention to the actual settings.

Back screen - I noticed the other week that it tilts up. I can see this being useful to some people.

Lenses - The glass is good quality, but comes at a premium price. (I bought a Sony 85/1.8 which is now my go-to portrait lens) I also have an MC-11 which allows me to use my Canon 50/1.2, 100/2 (which doesn't get used much now I have the 85), 24-70/2.8-II, and 24/4TS.

Backward compatibility - If you wished, you could purchase 4 adaptors (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and T-mount) to allow you to use the majority of lens manufactured in the last 50+ years. The focus Peaking and zoomed in screen to assist the manual focus process means it is an excellent choice if you like collecting and using classic manual lenses. (Manual focus 135/1.5 FTW!)

IBIS - You never even know it's there, but I am sure I'd notice if it were to stop working. And being able to shoot hand-held at 1/5th is pretty neat.

Controls - I am still coming to terms with them, and still find some of them awkward as most of them are opposite to what you'd intuitively assume. (Like turning dials clockwise to lower the values).

Conclusion: I have zero regrets. Most of the things I like about the camera are due to it being mirrorless, so be relevent to the EOS-R. However, the eye follow focus and IBIS are worth the price of admission alone. Buy an adaptor and keep all your Canon glass for a minimal risk trial so if you don't like it, you can offload it and go back to Canon. (Maybe when the dual-digic version of the EOS-R comes out. )

As for colour science, may I present to you exhibit A:

https://live.staticfli​ckr.com …28813775_ccdb27​bd16_o.jpg

Both images were shot with a Canon 100mm f/2.0 lens, ISO 100 1/125 @ f/6.3 with OCF set to 30% fill. One was shot with a 5D-iii body, while the other was shot with a Sony A7ii body.

Both images were converted directly from RAW, and the Sony image reduced in size to give same resolution as the Canon.

Does anybody want me to do any specific comparisons between a 5D-ii and A7Riii?

Guys, I appreciate all the responses. And thank you Dark Orange for a great analysis! I’m probably going to disappoint you all when I say that I’ve decided, for now, to keep the 5D. I’m going to sell my 1D4 and any Canon lenses that don’t get used regularly.

Now for hiking I really want a significant weight reduction. And given my prior very positive experience with the Fujifilm X-T1, I’ve decided to go with a Fujifilm X-T3. I’ve also decided on the 10-24/4 OIS, the 35/2 and the 55-200/3.5-4.8 OIS lenses. The whole kit is about $3500. The 10-24/4 OIS is perfect given that my most used Canon lens the last two years has been the 16-35/4 IS. The X-T3 and 10-24 are more than a pound lighter than the 5D4 and 16-35/4. And, OMG, put the 35/2 on there and one has a super light walk around!

So the X-T3 is a truly impressive machine! So much nicer than the EOS R that I tried. It responds to my inputs so immediately it truly feel like it’s operating by direct mechanical linkages. It is that fast. The menu system is easy peasy. I love the mechanical dials. High ISO noise performance is mind bogglingly good. Resolution is almost as good as the 5D4. The EVF blows away the EOS R’s. The rear LCD is tack sharp. And while I don’t shoot much video, the video features are the best I’ve ever had in a camera. AND, THIS IS A BIG DEAL! The camera will spot meter on the selected AF point!!! Oh how I wish my 5D4 would do this! I hate Canon for holding back that feature from everything but the 1D bodies! I know going from FF to APS-C should feel like a downgrade. But this camera feels like an upgrade. And given the light weight, I think I’m going to have a lot less need for my iPhone camera.

AeroSmith wrote in post #18863866
Guys, I appreciate all the responses. And thank you Dark Orange for a great analysis! I’m probably going to disappoint you all when I say that I’ve decided, for now, to keep the 5D. I’m going to sell my 1D4 and any Canon lenses that don’t get used regularly.

Now for hiking I really want a significant weight reduction. And given my prior very positive experience with the Fujifilm X-T1, I’ve decided to go with a Fujifilm X-T3. I’ve also decided on the 10-24/4 OIS, the 35/2 and the 55-200/3.5-4.8 OIS lenses. The whole kit is about $3500. The 10-24/4 OIS is perfect given that my most used Canon lens the last two years has been the 16-35/4 IS. The X-T3 and 10-24 are more than a pound lighter than the 5D4 and 16-35/4. And, OMG, put the 35/2 on there and one has a super light walk around!

So the X-T3 is a truly impressive machine! So much nicer than the EOS R that I tried. It responds to my inputs so immediately it truly feel like it’s operating by direct mechanical linkages. It is that fast. The menu system is easy peasy. I love the mechanical dials. High ISO noise performance is mind bogglingly good. Resolution is almost as good as the 5D4. The EVF blows away the EOS R’s. The rear LCD is tack sharp. And while I don’t shoot much video, the video features are the best I’ve ever had in a camera. AND, THIS IS A BIG DEAL! The camera will spot meter on the selected AF point!!! Oh how I wish my 5D4 would do this! I hate Canon for holding back that feature from everything but the 1D bodies! I know going from FF to APS-C should feel like a downgrade. But this camera feels like an upgrade. And given the light weight, I think I’m going to have a lot less need for my iPhone camera.

Hosted photo: posted by AeroSmith in
./showthread.php?p=188​63866&i=i83277295
forum: Changing Camera Brands

Congrats on the XT-3!

I'm really, really impressed with that camera. Sony does a lot of things great for professional use so its my system of choice, but I really like the size, aesthetics, and erconomics of fuji when it comes to shooting for fun. I've been tempted by the XT-3 and XT-30 lately....I just don't want to deal with balancing multiple systems anymore because it's a highly inefficient way of doing things.

Drk Orange wrote in post #18863827
Shutter - it took me a while to get used to not having the big old mirror slapping around. You get a feel for it and know when you need to change settings, but the A7RIII only has the mechanical shutter for tactile feedback which has no relationship to the actual exposure length. This just means you have to pay attention to the actual settings.

Mirrorless cameras' mechanical shutters do indeed determine the exposure time when used because electronic shutters suffer from rolling shutter.

Congrats on the camera. The X-T3 is a great one to have to hand for all kinds of shoots so hope it works out well for you. I know some look down on it because of it littler sensor but that’ll never hold it back in the right hands. Enjoy & come visit the Fuji forum some time

Quicky test shot for you guys. Raw file processed in Capture One with Fujifilm Velvia effect, zero noise reduction, cropped a little and resized for web.

IMO, it more depends if you have brand biased-ness or not than the actual camera/brand. A lot of people who tell you this brand is better than the other because of this and that. They are more likely biased towards their favorite brand. I feel like you could be happy with either A7r iii or EOS 5D mk iv. However, if you switch to Sony, the more important question is if you are willing to adopt to the new ergonomics, user interface, etc.. Some people don't like to change their habits, some don't mind to do so.

I own an A7r iii and I am more than happy with it: better sensor inside, better colors and skin tones, lighter and smaller than typical DSLR's, great ergonomics. I do miss a thorough touch interface and a few features. So no camera is perfect but my tool works for me. At this point, I need to focus on my photographing skills rather than the brand label on my camera, if I want to take better pictures. I think regardless of the camera brand, my pictures will come out more or less the same with respect to IQ.