Regrets and Bad Decisions

snegron wrote in post #19512217
It's not that the R6 is bad, it's just that the sensor on the Sony A7c is better at capturing details.

I compared them side by side using the same settings on equivalent lenses. The Sony A7c outperformed the R6 in terms of IQ.

I reluctantly sold the A7c because I couldn't find a compact, full frame AF 16mm in FE mount (like the Canon RF 16mm f2.8).

The a7c with the pancake kit was a really good and portable combo for me, although the 55 1.8 was my preferred lens on it.

The original a7r wasn't quite as small as it, and the AF was terrible, but that IQ was crazy good.

My current a7riii rig is certainly great for IQ, but I don't take it everywhere like I did the a7c or my old a6000 (or even my a7r). The Tamron 24 2.8 is an incredible lens for the money, and I consider mine a keeper no matter where I go next in the Sony lineup. That said, it is a little crazy they haven't come out with an E-mount wider than 20mm.

1. Long list of lenses for each body! Could you pair up two lenses, one for Sony and one for Canon, for which you did side by side comparisons with clear advantage for the Sony combination?
   
2. Were you comparing RAW-stored images, or in-camera JPG stored files?
   

snegron wrote in post #19511784
The IQ I'm getting from my R6 is nowhere near what I got from my Sony A7c with mostly Tamron lenses. Pixel peeping shows softer details with the R6 regardless of what lens I use.

Now you are confusing us with an opinion that seems not to jive with your above statement. In a thread 'Comparing 4 Rivals' you state

"ony A7c. Nice design if you like smaller bodies. I got it primarily for travel. In terms of IQ, the images I get from it are equal, if not slightly better than what I get from my Canon R6. Detail capture, AF, colors and dynamic range are equal/sometimes slightly better than the R6."

Could you elaborate more about the text highlighted in blue in both of the two threads?

Wilt wrote in post #19512584
Now you are confusing us with an opinion that seems not to jive with your above statement. In a thread 'Comparing 4 Rivals' you state

"ony A7c. Nice design if you like smaller bodies. I got it primarily for travel. In terms of IQ, the images I get from it are equal, if not slightly better than what I get from my Canon R6. Detail capture, AF, colors and dynamic range are equal/sometimes slightly better than the R6."

Could you elaborate more about the text highlighted in blue in both of the two threads?

Yes. In both posts I declared the Sony A7c to have better IQ than the R6. My first "tests" showed a slight advantage in favor of the A7c. Upon further testing, the A7c proved to be consistantly better than my R6 in terms of detail capture.

The last time I used both cameras side by side was during an elderly family members birthday party. It was a non-static, "real-life" testing opportunity. The images I got from the A7c were more detailed then those from the R6.

Most of the sharper details can be seen at a "pixel-peeping" level. Zooming in at 100% will usually reveal the quality of the captured details. Canon applies noise reduction in RAW at even low ISO's, whereas Sony either doesn't, or at least it is very minimal. This hinders the capture of fine details.

My most recent lens purchase for the R6 was the RF 24-105mm F4L. I was expecting great results, but the lens I got was a dud. It suffered from inconsistent focusing, the focus ring on the lens did not override the AF like every other L lens and the performance in less than bright lighting was bad. I ended up returning that lens.

That got me thinking, re-evaluating my current camera situation. Even if I were to spend over $2,000 on an RF lens better than the $1,300 EF 24-105mm f4L (that turned out to be a dud), I still won't get the detail capture I got with my A7c paired with relatively inexpensive Tamron lenses.

Right now I currently only own the following:

- Canon R6 and 7dmk2
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8
- Canon RF 16mm f2.8
- Canon RF 50mm f1.8 STM
- Canon 28mm f1.8 USM
- Canon 85mm f1.8 USM
- Canon 17-40mm f4.0L
- Canon 70-200mmf2.8L
- Canon 300mm f4.0L
- Three Canon EF to RF adapters

- Panasonic GX85 for slide copying

- Almost forgot; Ricoh GRIII Street Edition. It's my tiny travel companion fir snapshots whenever I'm walking and don't want to take out the bigger camera from the bag.


Realistically, right now I'm down to just the R6 with the few lenses I mentioned above. If I were to sell it together with the two small RF primes, I would be left with no full frame camera (only my old 7dmk2 and tiny Ricoh GRIII). I would not want to sell my 7dmk2 with remaining EF lenses because for the occasional back yard wildlife pics they work great.

So, in essence, it would be like I'm almost starting from scratch again.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #19512540
The a7c with the pancake kit was a really good and portable combo for me, although the 55 1.8 was my preferred lens on it.

The original a7r wasn't quite as small as it, and the AF was terrible, but that IQ was crazy good.

My current a7riii rig is certainly great for IQ, but I don't take it everywhere like I did the a7c or my old a6000 (or even my a7r). The Tamron 24 2.8 is an incredible lens for the money, and I consider mine a keeper no matter where I go next in the Sony lineup. That said, it is a little crazy they haven't come out with an E-mount wider than 20mm.

It is mind-boggling that there are so little AF choices for Sony FE under 20mm! I found that I really needed a 16mm for shooting inside old churches and castles, as 20mm was not wide enough.

If I go back to Sony, I would consider the Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 and a short telephoto. Or, maybe the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 (again) with a Sony 14mm f1.8 GM.

To clarify my insane behavior a bit, I have always strived to capture detailed images with great IQ and dynamic range.

Way before digital cameras were a thing, I used to shoot film. I maxed out the potential of 35mm film using the best possible Nikon AiS lenses. My main cameras were Nikon (FM2N, F, F2A, F3hp, F100). I got into medium format film to capture more detail, better dynamic range. The images I printed (16"×20") from the 120mm film were comparable to recent prints from my full frame digital cameras in terms of dynamic range.

My craziness transfered over from my film days to my digital days!

p.s. I still have my medium format cameras. My 8 pound Mamiya RB67 will definitely not make for a good travel camera!

Two more quick things to add to my last reply...
1) I promise you'll feel liberated if you pick a camera and 2, maybe 3, lenses and stop looking for at least a few years.
2) There is something very satisfying about having a familiar, long-term core of gear. It may sound a little over the top, but you will develop a "relationship" with that gear. You get to know the ins and outs of it, and because of that, you'll become a better photographer. You'll find that you are able to create images with that gear that others who aren't as familiar would struggle to accomplish.

Moral of this long story...simplify things.

Thx for the explanation, easy to understand how added experience(s) can reinforce a mild perception into a stronger one.

Your comment about 'noise reducing in RAW' does not jive with what is generally understood about RAW...the data is NOT at all processed, it is merely written to memory, with zero processing (other than passing the data thru an internal RAW-to-whatever processor to make an image that can be displayed on LCD/EVF. So there is some other reason for difference in detail seen. Could you grab screen shots of a Sony image and Canon image pair stored RAW and RAW-converted (with Photoshop/LR/DPP/etc.) from that party and post them, so we can see what you refer to as 'more' detail in the Sony vs. Canon shot?

MMp wrote in post #19512775
Two more quick things to add to my last reply...
1) I promise you'll feel liberated if you pick a camera and 2, maybe 3, lenses and stop looking for at least a few years.
2) There is something very satisfying about having a familiar, long-term core of gear. It may sound a little over the top, but you will develop a "relationship" with that gear. You get to know the ins and outs of it, and because of that, you'll become a better photographer. You'll find that you are able to create images with that gear that others who aren't as familiar would struggle to accomplish.

Moral of this long story...simplify things.

Thanks! That's pretty much what I have been trying to do recently. The mental debate I'm having now is whether I should stay with the R6 or sell it and go back to the A7c. Either choice, I'll be sticking with a minimal amount of lenses (no more than 3 lenses).

My ideal set up is one full frame camera body with lenses equalling 16mm, 35mm and 85mm.

With my R6 I currently have an RF 16mm f2.8 and an 85mm f1.8 USM (with adapter attached). I would just need a lightweight, fast, sharp, decent, durable AF 35mm lens.

If I sell my R6, I'll probably end up with an A7c and two lenses (Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 and some small telephoto).

Either way, I'll end up with a "minimalist" setup of one camera and two (maybe 3) lenses.

My buggest regret was selling my Sony A7c with the lenses I had. I should have sold the R6.

I'd add the RF 35 f/1.8 IS STM rather than selling everything and starting over. It's cheap, light/compact, sharp, and has IS. If a wider aperture is more valuable to you than the size/weight, I'd get a Sigma 35 f/1.4 since you already have the adapter.

One can drive ones self insane (and into a less fulfilling retirement bank account) with a pursuit of 'ultimate' IQ. Ultimate IQ should not always drive the choice of 'better'. You yourself described a camera with better feel in your hand, which can be a very important criteria of choice...great IQ but inferior control/handling takes pleasure away from the experience of shooting and can cause you to choose to NOT shoot simply because 'I do not feel like bringing it along' because the 'pleasure' of holding and using it is not there.

The A7C is an 'old' camera and there are plenty of newer models that outperform the A7C...so why hold yourself back in your selection?! Sony A7RIII has an 33% higher-resolution per millimeter of sensor, with Nyquist limit 3975 horizontal count line-pairs (vs. 2999 line-pairs in A7C) and you can get that for $1400.

In brief, it all needs to come to an end somewhere, in the relentless pursuit of 'just another 10%' in performance, doesn't it? I have some much admired (by others, including avid photographers) 60" wall prints, made from a paltry 12MPixel camera...it did not take even 33 MPixel images!

Wilt wrote in post #19512809
One can drive ones self insane (and into a less fulfilling retirement bank account) with a pursuit of 'ultimate' IQ. Ultimate IQ should not always drive the choice of 'better'. You yourself described a camera with better feel in your hand, which can be a very important criteria of choice...great IQ but inferior control/handling takes pleasure away from the experience of shooting and can cause you to choose to NOT shoot simply because 'I do not feel like bringing it along' because the 'pleasure' of holding and using it is not there.

The A7C is an 'old' camera and there are plenty of newer models that outperform the A7C...so why hold yourself back in your selection?! Sony A7RIII has an 33% higher-resolution per millimeter of sensor, with Nyquist limit 3975 horizontal count line-pairs (vs. 2999 line-pairs in A7C) and you can get that for $1400.

In brief, it all needs to come to an end somewhere, in the relentless pursuit of 'just another 10%' in performance, doesn't it? I have some much admired (by others, including avid photographers) 60" wall prints, made from a paltry 12MPixel camera...it did not take even 33 MPixel images!

You are definitely 100% correct! This pursuit has been maddening to say the least! The irony is that years ago before full frame digital existed, I shot multiple weddings with Nikon D1X's and D200's! I still have 16"× 20" prints that were shot with my ancient D1X's!

One area where Canon wins hands down over any other system I have ever used is ergonomics. Canon cameras (old dslr's and newer R6) feel perfect in my hands. The only other camera that felt like that was my old Nikon F100 film camera. One thing I did to improve the feel of the A7c was to attach an extended bottom grip to it. The overall footprint of the A7c is smaller than many other full frame mirrorless cameras. I have read that Canon's new R8 is close in size to the A7c, but it lacks IBIS and is not as weather sealed as the A7c or the R6.

One thing I found annoyingly irritating about the A7c was that there were very limited choices of small, compact AF lenses for it. Most lenses dwarfed the A7c. I never understood why they couldn't make a compact 16mm like the Canon RF 16mm f2.8. The idea of having a compact, full frame camera is to pair it with compact, full frame lenses.

snegron wrote in post #19512886
One thing I found annoyingly irritating about the A7c was that there were very limited choices of small, compact AF lenses for it. Most lenses dwarfed the A7c. I never understood why they couldn't make a compact 16mm like the Canon RF 16mm f2.8. The idea of having a compact, full frame camera is to pair it with compact, full frame lenses.

Methinks the issue is inclusion of AF mechanism imposes limits on the compactness (and weight)...I look at 100mm EF and compare it to 100mm OM, and
But even manual focus lenses that were never designed for compactness or light weight ...13 oz Topcon RE 135mm f/2.8 vs 15 oz. Canon EF 100mm f/2 (without any IS weight)

Wilt wrote in post #19512893
Methinks the issue is inclusion of AF mechanism imposes limits on the compactness (and weight)...I look at 100mm EF and compare it to 100mm OM, and
But even manual focus lenses that were never designed for compactness or light weight ...13 oz Topcon RE 135mm f/2.8 vs 15 oz. Canon EF 100mm f/2 (without any IS weight)

That's what I thought as well until I ended up buying the Canon RF 16mm f2.8! It is small, lightweight, sharp and has AF. It's roughly the same size as the Sony FE 40mm f2.5 G.

Enlightening