You've got no gear at all - Would you get a 5DMKIV or D850

The a7rIII is definitely worth throwing into the mix now that's been announced. It operationally can go toe-to-toe with both the 5D and D850, the sensor is great, and there are notable upsides (i.e. eye AF, no microfocus issues, IBIS etc.). Plus their Pro Services is proving to be top notch too.

One upside to the a7 bodies is that there isn't a need to have a secondary compact system for casual use.....mount a large lens to an a7 body and its still a big camera, but mount a smaller prime onto the body and you have a nice compact set-up too.

The a7riii and a9 give photographers far less reasons to consider Sony. Perhaps maximum durability and maximum write speeds are the only Achilles heel left to nit pick over in terms of what the bodies offer.

For those who want CP's-level service, that is coming.

The ability to get top-notch AF from A, EF, FL and FE glass is a pretty underrated plus for the A9 and a7riii. Feel like packing a bag with both an 85 1.2L and a 105 f1. 4, but only want to pack one body? You can do it, and do it stabilized!

I think you mean "far more reason"

elitejp wrote in post #18504689
I think you mean "far more reason"

Although I'm hearing about more photographers ditching Sony and returning to Canon or Nikon, the "far more reason" you suggested seems more like what I'd expect to hear.

I can't think of far less reason to consider Sony.

The only thing that comes to mind, would be the most recent models not overcoming a few hurdles a few consumers were hopeful for.

D850 all the way. Silent shutter option and can handle high ISO.

The 5Dmk4 has no silent shutter option and isn't that good at high ISO -- 3200+

I have the 5DMK4 and it can be a struggle for wildlife that's not lit up with the sun !, Its good for cropping in which is a bonus

Canon-Chas wrote in post #18523985
D850 all the way. Silent shutter option.

The 5Dmk4 has no silent shutter option . . .
.

A completely silent shutter option would be most valuable for some of my wildlife photography attempts.

.

Canon-Chas wrote in post #18523985
D850 all the way . . . can handle high ISO.

The 5Dmk4 isn't that good at high ISO -- 3200+

I have the 5DMK4 and it can be a struggle for wildlife that's not lit up with the sun !
.

I limit my photography to 1600 ISO, and have no trouble properly capturing wildlife in overcast conditions. . In fact, I would guesstimate that over 50 of all my wildlife photography takes place when there is no direct sunlight - either early in the morning before the sun comes up, late in the evening after sunset, or on completely overcast days. . I can't understand why someone thinks they need ISO 3200 and above for such photography. . It would help at certain times, but much of the time, there is no need to "struggle" at less than 3200 ISO.

I currently use a Canon 1D Mark 4, and I think that the 5D4 would be a huge improvement, but many times the 1D4 and 1600 ISO is just fine, even in cloudy conditions. . If you are struggling to capture quality wildlife photos with your 5D4, perhaps you need to re-evaluate the type of shooting you are attempting to do, and what your exposure triangle priorities are.


.

Canon-Chas wrote in post #18523985
D850 all the way. Silent shutter option and can handle high ISO.

The 5Dmk4 has no silent shutter option and isn't that good at high ISO -- 3200+

I have the 5DMK4 and it can be a struggle for wildlife that's not lit up with the sun !, Its good for cropping in which is a bonus

I used to think no shutter noise wouldn't be at the top of my list of "accessories". That has changed since this summer. I was covering a PGA event in Ohio this summer & started talking to a shooter for USA Today. He was using a mirror less, I think it was Olympus?? First of all, 18 fps!!!!!! At what point are you just shooting video?? But his ability to photograph the golfers in their backswing is what really got my attention.

Came across this 5D4 v D850 v others comparison tonight. The high ISO tests may be of interest.
Subject is girl in a bathrobe, completely covered. May not be SFW.

http://www.streetsilho​uettes.com …r-comparison-of-5-cameras

Lee

I tend to photograph difficult subjects Tom, my latest project was Goshawk in west of Scotland. This is a rare and extremely cautious woodland bird which is very difficult to get close to, even with a hide. My 1DX is too noisy for this bird at 15 metres in a woodland hide unless there is a strong wind to mask the "silent" single shot shutter. I got the 5D MK4 as it has silent continuous shutter option and the files are 50% bigger (30 MP) which means I can crop more and still have an A3 size image. Shutter speeds when the Goshawk is feeding needs at least 1/250 using my 300 f2.8 mk2 + 1.4 TC ...420mm , so even at 1/200 f4, ISO 2000+ is needed to expose correctly. I shoot in Manual with ISO set to auto and try to avoid >2500 iso, but with no sunlight except for a rare shaft of light breaking through things are difficult to say the least once the Goshawk starts moving . Other than that most of my wildlife pics are in good light .
What I really need is a Canon Silent shutter full frame Camera , hopefully Canon will catch up with the competition ! My 1DX could easily handle iso 6400 , but it's a trade off with larger 5d mk4 files. I have a friend in Wales who has photographed Goshawk and he has had to go as low as 1/8 shutter speed ! The lowest I have managed is 1/40 when the Goshawk froze for 10 seconds as he watched his larger mate in the tree above

Goshawk below

Canon 5D MK4, 300mm F2.8 MK2 +1.4 TC ...420mm
1/160
f5.6
ISO 3200 ( Noise reduction , Topaz Denoise)

I went the Nikon route and am really enjoying the D850 and new Nikon glass.

Still find it weird not owning a Canon body nor any Canon glass.

fotoworx wrote in post #18525086
.
I went the Nikon route and am really enjoying the D850 and new Nikon glass.

Still find it weird not owning a Canon body nor any Canon glass.
.

Does high ISO noise performance and dynamic range matter to you, or was it something else that caused you to switch over to Nikon?

.
.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18525132
Does high ISO noise performance and dynamic range matter to you, or was it something else that caused you to switch over to Nikon?

.
.

If I was in his position there would be little to zero reason to go with canon over the D850. Canon has nothing that even competes with it.

Canon-Chas wrote in post #18523985
isn't that good at high ISO -- 3200+

I find this comment odd.

you're definition of good must be much different to mine.

I find the comparisons at this level of cameras is just nitpicking in regards to IQ.

Online reviewers and trolls will single out a few things and beat that to death, rather than look at things that really matter.

IQ in the real world is so close it's ridiculous. If you need more than a stop or two of DR regularly outside of landscape or realestate photography then you really should be looking at your skills and not the camera.

I think the tech is so good now that people have got lazy and do not invest time into studying actual photography outside of clicking the shutter and raising shadows and lowering highlights on Lightroom or whatever.

I think the more important question is reliability, lens selection, total cost of ownership and so on.

I'm not dissing any camera, I like canon because I am used to it, they have never failed me and I like how the images look in raw straight of the camera. Plus I like the lenses. A nikon shooter could say the same thing and no one would be wrong.

I can't see how you could go wrong with either camera.

George Zip wrote in post #18525173
I find the comparisons at this level of cameras is just nitpicking in regards to IQ.


I think the more important question is reliability, lens selection, total cost of ownership and so on.

You are right, George. . The differences in high ISO performance and in dynamic range between these two models just aren't important, and will not make a difference in one's photography. . Yet, it seems that many gearhead types make gear decisions based on these almost meaningless factors. . It is odd indeed.

.