How do you really know SONY is what you want.

It would be great to hear from people who have changed to Sony and why they really like it. Non-Technical.

I'll start......
I recently lost my A6000. Misplaced it somewhere. I just couldn't find it and was sure that I did not leave it someplace. Looked hard for weeks, it really freaked me out. I searched high and low. So I had to either go to my backup NEX 3N or Canon 5D. Yike! what to do. To make this short I really realized that I absolutely am all in on late model Sony. The 5D just didn't work out so great. Still an awesome camera, but not so willing to carry it as much as the A6000 and the NEX3N was old enough that there were some features that I really count on such as clear zoom with a prime. But after many weeks it was found, accidentally, and I'm back to normal. You just don't know what you are missing until you are actually missing it.

I moved from Canon to Sony, I'm very happy with it and would only go back for one reason - Robustness.....

I had a 1D Mk3 and that thing was built like a brick out house, It has been hit by cars, dropped, frozen, showered with sparks and put near flames and it never skipped a beat!

The Sony feels a bit more fragile, but..... It's light, compact, feels like a point and shoot but with the control and quality of a DSLR, i LOVE the evf (but want to get a custom eye piece cause mine doesnt fit my eye and keeps falling off)

All the knobs, dials etc are in the right ergonomic place and finally i can use my ever growing selection of vintage lenses with cheap easy to find adapters!

I'm a happy bunny now.

I had a really functional Canon kit that served me well--from 30,000 ft. I had all that I really needed in a system.

6D, 60D, 200 2.8L ii, 135L, 50A, 17-40L, 580exii

For sports, events, landscape and portraits I had all the tools I could ever need to take good pictures. But there were two things that bugged me, and it lead me to swap systems.

1. First and foremost, I would look at the files Sony shooters on this board were getting . . . and I couldn't stop looking. The detail and clarity they were producing was truly inspiring, and maybe I needed a little inspiration at that point. It took me awhile, but I became convinced I could go from my above kit to an A7R, a6000, FE 55 1.8, PZ16-50 and a lens that would give me 200mm f2.8 and be happier.

It took some trial and error with the 200mm solution, but I eventually got there when I accepted that the A77ii was going to be my telephoto sports shooting solution. I could sell my A77ii and Minolta 200 2.8 straight-up for a used 7Dii/EF200 2.8 combo but it would be splitting hairs IMO. But that is a different thread, probably.

The files I get from my Sony gear, by in large, are ones that I am happier with using my old Canon kit. My hit rate is also better, in spite of how slow the A7R can focus and how careful I have to be to use good form with 36MP behind every actuation. My A7R/FE55 combo is definitely coming out as an upgrade from my 6D/50A combo, in spite of it being an almost even trade-off financially.

2. Size mattered to me. I was bringing my 6D with me less and less because I had my two small children with me more and more. It wasn't that I had a problem fitting it in the diaper bag (read: lowepro 35L), just that it can be a challenge trying to navigate even a light body like the 6D when it has a 50A or 135L attached to it. A few whacks to the head to my toddlers when I had my camera slung around my shoulder or neck produced laser beams and gasps of pain. The a6000 is only a little bigger than a point-and-shoot with the 16-50 on it, so it is pretty harmless. The A7R with the FE55 attached isn't quite as small, but it is still small. I don't leave my camera at home anymore, and I don't worry about beating my littles around with it either.

So after about 10 months of shooting with Sony, I'm a believer. I feel my work is stronger than it has ever been, I can push the files really far in post when I need to, and the gear is more convenient for me to integrate into my life.

I had a good Canon kit, 5DIII, 7DII, 50L, 85L 100L, 70-200L etc....

All is pretty much gone now.

Now I have 7RII and A6300 with bunch of glass, and I would never go back to Canon, the images from Sony are light years ahead, and hit rate is much much better, no more worrying about backfocusing, frontfocusing, micro adjustments and other BS.

Just shoot.

And small system now that I have a 2 year old is so much better, chasing a kid around with 5DIII and a big Canon lens got tiresome.

A6300 plus kit lens works great, or A7RII + FE55 even better.

Its so easy shooting vintage manual glass on Sony, tried it before on Canon and it was frustrating.

One other thing I noticed is that I am using primes more. Maybe its the clear image zoom that gives me a little bit'a zoom. But since I know have the C1 button programmed to control zoom its just automatic to my mind. I almost think I have a zoom lens.

The simple answer for me is that the modular nature of the a7 cameras has encouraged me to shoot more. There are quirks with Sony for sure, but at the end of the day I shoot for more frequently now than when I shot Canon. Size is a big part of that....a smaller set-up means I'm more likely to bring the camera out and as such, take more photos. The original a7r was crippled in very many different ways, but when I picked that up, I found that my 5DIII was sitting in bags for months at a time. The a7rII hit the market with all of the right features for me to ditch the 5DIII, as it covers the duties that I needed in both the a7r and 5DIII but within a single body.

The release of the fast aperture lenses seals the deal for me, as I now have a good workhorse set-up when I need it, and nice casual set-ups when I need that....all in a single system.

As for the technical stuff...its hard to discount that. Industry leading sensors and top notch lenses are important.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #18098164
the images from Sony are light years ahead ...

A light-year is a unit of distance, not time. It's the distance light travels in one year. So what does your statement mean?

Chet wrote in post #18100174
A light-year is a unit of distance, not time. It's the distance light travels in one year. So what does your statement mean?

That's the thing about English Langue it has many meanings

https://www.usingengli​sh.com …ms/light+years+​ahead.html

mystik610 wrote in post #18100163
The simple answer for me is that the modular nature of the a7 cameras has encouraged me to shoot more. There are quirks with Sony for sure, but at the end of the day I shoot for more frequently now than when I shot Canon. Size is a big part of that....a smaller set-up means I'm more likely to bring the camera out and as such, take more photos. The original a7r was crippled in very many different ways, but when I picked that up, I found that my 5DIII was sitting in bags for months at a time. The a7rII hit the market with all of the right features for me to ditch the 5DIII, as it covers the duties that I needed in both the a7r and 5DIII but within a single body.

The release of the fast aperture lenses seals the deal for me, as I now have a good workhorse set-up when I need it, and nice casual set-ups when I need that....all in a single system.

As for the technical stuff...its hard to discount that. Industry leading sensors and top notch lenses are important.

This sounds just like my first venture into Sony world. Also started with A7r but was disappointed after few months sold it and continued using the 5diii and my Olys.

But with release of a7rii it was time to dump Canon.

If I would have went for a7 instead of a7r I would have probably made the switch sooner.

A few years back and a lot of the arguments of here where FF V Crop, or more specifically 5D2 V 7D. Many people who moved to FF would post on here about how the difference was night/day between the two formats, but when pressed to share the big differences the excuses would start.

Fast forward a few years now Sony are producing their A series bodies/lens, and to me the difference really is huge. Its obvious even at web sizes how much detail the Sony sensors capture. I never saw that with Canon.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #18100354
This sounds just like my first venture into Sony world. Also started with A7r but was disappointed after few months sold it and continued using the 5diii and my Olys.

But with release of a7rii it was time to dump Canon.

If I would have went for a7 instead of a7r I would have probably made the switch sooner.

Yeah the original a7r was an PITA in a lot of ways. The 5DIII is a workhorse and a much better camera in terms of responsiveness, AF, etc etc.....but a7r's sensor was so much better that it made dealing with the quirks of the camera worth the effort. Plus its simply more fun to shoot with. I basically brought out the 5DIII only when I shot weddings back then....for my own personal shooting, it was always the a7r.

The a7rII still has some trade-offs vs a full-fledged DSLR, but they are pretty insignificant unless you needs sports and wildlife caliber AF. I don't shoot weddings any more, but would have no qualms using the a7rII to shoot one. I do a bit of paid event shooting on the a7rII and it works well. Plus the sensor is a big leap forward at high ISO, and things like IBIS, eye focus, etc etc are significant features absent from non-sony DSLR's.

i tried the the A6000... i was not really satisfied.. biggest complaint being the screen being unusable during the daytime when the sun was out. the glare was crazy , even with the evf i had to sheild the light out with one hand to see well..and the menu system. etc etc..

my mirrorless is currently the panasonic gx8. and it has the features that i did like about the a6000 , features common among mirrorless cameras but with a better evf and screen than the a6000..

i enjoy using the Gx8 more than i actually enjoy using my canon cameras..size and weight.. much easier to manually focus , peaking, zebras , easier live view shooting etc.. however i'm not happy with the end results compared to my 5d3.. the differnece is there , i'm sure some very proffesional results can be had with m43 cameras but , poor low light abilities among other things prettty much keep the Gx8 my walk around camera ,, the camera i grab when i'm not going out to specifically shoot..

This brings me back to sony..
in trying to figure out what it would cost me to bring me to where i'm at now with canon .. it seems not as much as i thought..the pair of streak light 360ii's that i have ive just learned are still usable ,, ttl and hss features as well , just need the sony specific controller..(aprox 50bucks)

i currenlty have a fotodiox ef to sony adapter .. poor af , but for portraits and city pics , which is what i mostly do , it will do to start..
i suppose i can get a metabones eventually to use my 24-70 ,,or am i better off selling that and buying native sony lenses?.. i'll have to do that research..

i want to make the change..the a6000 experience just makes me nervous..
if i sell my m4/3 camera ,lenses and metabones speed booster ,, that might get me a little under halfway to an a7rii..
and i dont have to get rid of the 5d3 until i decide if the a7rii is for me.. if it is , then the sale of the 5d3 will almost cover the other half of the cost of the a7rii

decisions decisions.. the good thing is i dont depend on my cameras for a paycheck.. so any mistake in judgement isnt going to make me miss rent

One area that I have not ventured into is speed boosters. I was watching a youtube video about some chinese booster and the comment made was that it doesn't really make the sensor grow from APC to FF. But at the moment he turned the camera, without lens, and you could see the sensor which certainly did look bigger. So now I am wondering what a Tamron 28-75 2.8 which becomes a f2 does for me. Oh the choices.