Sony vs Canon 5d3/6D for Weddings?

I glanced through here and have read online on other places but i wanted to talk to someone on their real life experiences with these. I currently shoot with a 5d3 and a 6D with L series lenses. I love the canon system and am very comfortable with it. But there is part of me that cannot stop from being interested in Sony's system. My concern is with the low light performance of the sony system and the lens options from them as well.

For those that are on sony, are you shooting weddings? If so, can i please see some example photos from various times of the day for the shoot?

Any other thoughts would be wonderful!

Long story short:

-do an instagram search for the user NEFSANTOS, he uses dual Sony A7 cameras for wedding work with amazing results.
-I know first hand that Sony A7s focuses really really well in the dark, I would honestly say that it focuses faster than a 5DII with a 50L and AFassist on.
- I have lots of reception images with the A7s and 28-70mm lens
-If you are comfortable with what you have right now, there is no real reason to change.

irishguy0224 wrote in post #17708781
I glanced through here and have read online on other places but i wanted to talk to someone on their real life experiences with these. I currently shoot with a 5d3 and a 6D with L series lenses. I love the canon system and am very comfortable with it. But there is part of me that cannot stop from being interested in Sony's system. My concern is with the low light performance of the sony system and the lens options from them as well.

For those that are on sony, are you shooting weddings? If so, can i please see some example photos from various times of the day for the shoot?

Any other thoughts would be wonderful!

I'll probably take some heat for this as it is the Sony forum, but did you expect honest answers in here? I'll comment since I just went thru this recently. If you love the Canon system and are comfortable with it, why disrupt that? Especially if you earn a living shooting weddings? I made the mistake of selling my Canon gear and spent 3 weeks trying out new systems, including Sony and it just wasn't worth it. Went back to Canon with a new 6D. You are right, the two biggest problems with Sony is their inferior AF system (especially in low light) and the horribly small selection of quality FE lenses. Its very a very short list of lenses, especially if you are used to the great selection of Canon lenses. Forget an adapter for your Canon lenses, they are overpriced and make the already bad Sony AF system even slower and more inaccurate. Speaking of overpriced accessories, the gip for the A7x series is $300, the 6D grip is only $170. Stick with what you have or go ahead and rent an A7x camera and a lens and try it out first.

Agree with both previous posts when they say if you're happy with what you've got, why switch? If it's just GAS, I can empathize, but try to fight it. If it aint broke don't fix it. Whatever you do, don't sell your tried-and-true gear unless you're really sure

That said, I was also a Canon shooter for YEARS, but I had a much different experience from dexter. And I think, your reaction to a Sony will depend very heavily on which body you try. Dexter, curious, which sony body did you try? From what I understand, the older A7's AF performance is miles behind the on-sensor PDAF of the Rii. I don't shoot weddings often (occasionally do), primarily I'm a portrait/headshot guy, with theatre production and promo photography as my second most frequent type of shooting. I wanted to get a higher resolution camera primarily to use in the studio, and figured that I would need to hold on to my 5D3 for the theatre work - lots of low light, fast movement sometimes, and I'd read that the Sony's AF was pretty bad in low light.

I picked up the A7Rii along with a couple native lenses and a metabones IV, and started using it side by side with my usual gear (5D3 and L's) in all scenarios, and to my pleasant surprise, it killed the 5D3 in all of them, even situations where I had assumed the 5D3 would win. No trouble at all with AF in low light theatre shoots, keeper rate shot through the roof. With the DSLR at wide apertures I would often shoot in bursts, reacquiring focus frequently, because I just knew many of them would be misses - with the Rii I'm having to retrain myself to take fewer shots, because it just doesn't miss focus... like almost never. To me that's the biggest plus. Add to that little bonuses like WYSIWYG preview in the EVF, focus peaking and magnification that makes MF'ing when needed an absolute breeze, Eye-AF for portraits with native glass, and files with so much detail and latitude that respond to extreme pushing and pulling in post. It's just a flat out win for me.

It felt like I was giving a beloved child up for adoption, but I sold the 5D3 a couple weeks ago because I had stopped bringing it to shoots. A few years back I would have laughed (hard) if someone suggested I use a Sony - and at the time my laughter might have been justified. They have really stepped up their game. This whole experience has been very eye opening.

I went from Canon 60D (later stolen) -> Sony A77 + A33 -> Canon 1D II + 1DsII -> Canon 5D3 + Sony A5100.

I also have shot A7 series cameras occasionally.

Personally, I don't like the EVF. It's functional, but not...as enjoyable? Sony sensors are of course better but the AF on the earlier A7 lineup does suck compared to Canon. I feel that full size DSLRs are also preferable in terms of settings adjustment, with bigger and more buttons and dials. They are also more comfortable to hold for a long time. Weather sealing, durability, and battery life are also better.

I'm selling the A5100 now. Low end E glass is too crappy for the price relative to Canon. Same is true for FE glass besides 55 1.8 and Batis lenses.

If Sony had a better lens ecosystem (2.8 lenses for same price as their f4 lineup), then I would have bought an A7rII instead of a 5d3. Adapters are too finicky; not all lens/adapter combos work as expected...

I'm happy with my 5D. It feels more natural than Sonys to me, and I have spent much time with both systems.

I had the A7 and the Sony 24-70 f/4, didn't care for either. To the OP, like I said, I would suggest that you rent a Sony system before switching over. You should definitely get the mark ii of any one of these as well. There is a big reason the second versions appeared so quickly, because the originals were pretty badly flawed. Nothing like being a test dummy for a company only for them to release a better, updated version of your camera a year later, I find that disingenuous. I also can not stress enough the importance of the lack of FE lenses. Looking at your gear list, you will not find anything comparable with the current FE lens lineup. The only FE 24-70 is an f/4 and its not good, certainly not worthy of the Zeiss name, its basically a kit lens. You wont find a 70-200 f/2.8, closest you'll find is an f/4 and shooting in natural light, that could be a major issue. Not to mention its $400 more expensive than its 70-200 f/4 IS Canon counterpart. You also wont find a 50 prime that fast. Best you will get is a Sony 55 f/1.8 and while its quite good, its not 50 f/1.2L good. You will also need to stock up on batteries with an A7x series too, battery life is plain awful. The A7rii is rated at 340 shots...I couldn't imagine being on a wedding shoot all day, would probably need 6 batteries. Especially if you are going to be shooting video, then you also have the sensor overheating issues to worry about. Just some things to consider.

dexter75 wrote in post #17711148
I had the A7 and the Sony 24-70 f/4, didn't care for either. To the OP, like I said, I would suggest that you rent a Sony system before switching over. You should definitely get the mark ii of any one of these as well. There is a big reason the second versions appeared so quickly, because the originals were pretty badly flawed. Nothing like being a test dummy for a company only for them to release a better, updated version of your camera a year later, I find that disingenuous. I also can not stress enough the importance of the lack of FE lenses. Looking at your gear list, you will not find anything comparable with the current FE lens lineup. The only FE 24-70 is an f/4 and its not good, certainly not worthy of the Zeiss name, its basically a kit lens. You wont find a 70-200 f/2.8, closest you'll find is an f/4 and shooting in natural light, that could be a major issue. Not to mention its $400 more expensive than its 70-200 f/4 IS Canon counterpart. You also wont find a 50 prime that fast. Best you will get is a Sony 55 f/1.8 and while its quite good, its not 50 f/1.2L good. You will also need to stock up on batteries with an A7x series too, battery life is plain awful. The A7rii is rated at 340 shots...I couldn't imagine being on a wedding shoot all day, would probably need 6 batteries. Especially if you are going to be shooting video, then you also have the sensor overheating issues to worry about. Just some things to consider.

First; please use more punctuation, it's difficult to read your posts, especially on my phone.

Second; AF even in low light is plenty good enough with the newest a7 bodies (a7ii, a7S and a7Rii).

Third; the 24-70mm Zeiss is comparable to the 24-105L, it's certainly not horrible.

Fourth; there are so many good lenses on the FE system that it's silly considering it's only existed for 3 years. They have everything from 16mm to 240mm covered natively and most of that glass is fantastic.

Lastly; the battery life of the a7 line isn't even half as bad as people make it out to be and even if it were a battery change takes 10 seconds and the batteries are small, cheap and light.

All that said, I would recommend the TS rent an a7 body and try it out first hand, you might like it, you might not. It would be foolish to sell all your stuff and commit to a system you're unsure about.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17712442
First; please use more punctuation, it's difficult to read your posts, especially on my phone.

Second; AF even in low light is plenty good enough with the newest a7 bodies (a7ii, a7S and a7Rii).

Third; the 24-70mm Zeiss is comparable to the 24-105L, it's certainly not horrible.

Fourth; there are so many good lenses on the FE system that it's silly considering it's only existed for 3 years. They have everything from 16mm to 240mm covered natively and most of that glass is fantastic.

Lastly; the battery life of the a7 line isn't even half as bad as people make it out to be and even if it were a battery change takes 10 seconds and the batteries are small, cheap and light.

All that said, I would recommend the TS rent an a7 body and try it out first hand, you might like it, you might not. It would be foolish to sell all your stuff and commit to a system you're unsure about.

Ok, punctuation shall be used more prominently! I don't think they have anywhere close to everything covered with FE lenses. The most popular wedding zoom lenses are the Canon 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/2.8 Sony has none of these in the FE line, they are all f/4. They are especially lacking in fast primes. Where are the faster than f1.8 primes? The 50 f/1.2 and the 85 f/1.2 are two popular wedding primes, again, Sony has nothing in that range at all. Its a VERY limited selection for wedding and portrait shooters like myself.

dexter75 wrote in post #17712972
Ok, punctuation shall be used more prominently! I don't think they have anywhere close to everything covered with FE lenses. The most popular wedding zoom lenses are the Canon 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/2.8 Sony has none of these in the FE line, they are all f/4. They are especially lacking in fast primes. Where are the faster than f1.8 primes? The 50 f/1.2 and the 85 f/1.2 are two popular wedding primes, again, Sony has nothing in that range at all. Its a VERY limited selection for wedding and portrait shooters like myself.

According to your gear list you have none of those lenses... explain to me again how essential they are.

I shoot events and portraits, not once have I needed f1.2 or an f2.8 zoom.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17713136
According to your gear list you have none of those lenses... explain to me again how essential they are.

I shoot events and portraits, not once have I needed f1.2 or an f2.8 zoom.

Most my shoots are under studio lights from f/8-f/13, I don't need that fast of a prime. However, this thread is about wedding photography and every wedding photographer I know wants as fast glass as they can get and they always have f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses. Something Sony does not even offer in their FE lineup aside from one 35mm which is not an ideal focal length on a prime for weddings.

Honestly I think both of you are making valid points. To be competitive, Sony does need to (and I believe will soon) announce and release fast zooms and add more wide aperture primes to their lineup. I couldn't do what I do with f/4's. But that's not stopping me, or any of the event/wedding shooters I heard who've made the switch

I just spent half my day shooting with something no Canon shooter has - a stabilized 85Lii, a stabilized 135L, a stabilized 24-70Lii. They all AF great (first time with the 135L since Metabones just released their updated firmware that supports it a couple days ago), add to that facial recognition which also works great with Canon lenses, and when I'm feeling frisky, and want to go wide open on the 85 or 135 and need to be hypercritical on focus, they also manually focus like a breeze with focus peaking in the EVF. Even if I do get my hands on a Batis 85 or if Sony releases an f/1.4 85 as is rumored, I don't know if I'll take the plunge because frankly the 85Lii kicks serious butt on the A7Rii

bpaulette wrote in post #17713652
Honestly I think both of you are making valid points. To be competitive, Sony does need to (and I believe will soon) announce and release fast zooms and add more wide aperture primes to their lineup. I couldn't do what I do with f/4's. But that's not stopping me, or any of the event/wedding shooters I heard who've made the switch

I just spent half my day shooting with something no Canon shooter has - a stabilized 85Lii, a stabilized 135L, a stabilized 24-70Lii. They all AF great (first time with the 135L since Metabones just released their updated firmware that supports it a couple days ago), add to that facial recognition which also works great with Canon lenses, and when I'm feeling frisky, and want to go wide open on the 85 or 135 and need to be hypercritical on focus, they also manually focus like a breeze with focus peaking in the EVF. Even if I do get my hands on a Batis 85 or if Sony releases an f/1.4 85 as is rumored, I don't know if I'll take the plunge because frankly the 85Lii kicks serious butt on the A7Rii

Thats great. You do realize Canon shooters have been producing amazing, award winning photographs with those lenses for decades without any kind of image stabilization right? Imagine that!

dexter75 wrote in post #17713776
Thats great. You do realize Canon shooters have been producing amazing, award winning photographs with those lenses for decades without any kind of image stabilization right? Imagine that!

You do know that the 135L is severely crippled not having IBIS right?

Many forego the 135 for the 70-200f2.8 due to its light chomping abilities.

It's a serious pain shooting the 135 for events. I don't have to imagine it, I've done it and continue to bite my lip. I've also shot the 135 with IBIS, and its an amazing combo. Much lower shutter speeds AND more consistency.

An equally impressive combo is the Zeiss 100 MP with IBIS.... Wow, in love.

Charlie wrote in post #17714025
You do know that the 135L is severely crippled not having IBIS right?

Many forego the 135 for the 70-200f2.8 due to its light chomping abilities.

It's a serious pain shooting the 135 for events. I don't have to imagine it, I've done it and continue to bite my lip. I've also shot the 135 with IBIS, and its an amazing combo. Much lower shutter speeds AND more consistency.

An equally impressive combo is the Zeiss 100 MP with IBIS.... Wow, in love.

Again, the 135L has been around nearly 20 years now and thousands of photographers have taken amazing, award winning photographs with it, no IS needed. Its legendary and considered one of the best and sharpest lenses Canon has ever made. IBIS wasn't even a thing until what? 5 years ago? What did pros do before then? How did they manage to get amazing photographs for decades with no stabilization of any kind? Yes, IS is nice to have in certain situations but photographers who NEED IS in their lenses (or bodies for that matter) to get a quality shot really need to work on their skills.

dexter75 wrote in post #17714076
Again, the 135L has been around nearly 20 years now and thousands of photographers have taken amazing, award winning photographs with it, no IS needed. Its legendary and considered one of the best and sharpest lenses Canon has ever made. IBIS wasn't even a thing until what? 5 years ago? What did pros do before then? How did they manage to get amazing photographs for decades with no stabilization of any kind? Yes, IS is nice to have in certain situations but photographers who NEED IS in their lenses (or bodies for that matter) to get a quality shot really need to work on their skills.

film has been around for what, ages.... nobody needs digital

do you even use the 135 in low light? didnt think so.