Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 10 Jan 2018 (Wednesday) 17:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Long time Canon user....but this A7R iii looks too good!

 
fplstudio
Senior Member
Avatar
408 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1890
Joined Jun 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 10, 2018 17:58 |  #1

I have been enjoying Canon for more than a decade when I started with my fisr DSLR, the Canon 10 D. Then I progressively upgraded to 20D > 50D > 6D > 5DSR and collected many L lenses.
I feel a bit frustrated to see very little improvements in what Canon has given us in the last 2-3 years when compared to the competition, to the extent that it seems they are one or more generations behind Sony.
I reckon Canon is still ahead in terms of pure imaging but it is the first time I start to see those benefts really struggling against all functionalities of bodies like the new A7R iii. I am not talking dsrl vs. mirrorless but how apparent it is that competitors make Canon's bodies feel quite obsolete.
Do you feel the same?
What do you see at the horizon?


10+ years with Canon, now new fresh air with Sony Full Frame
A7R3 | A6300 | MC-11 | FE 16-35 GM | EF 35 1.4 Art | FE 55 1.8 | FE 85 1.8 | EF 70-200 4L IS | FE 100-400 4.5-5.6 GM OSS | E 10-18 4 OSS | E 35 1.8 OSS
Godox AD200 | V860ii | 2x TT600

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,038 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1798
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jan 10, 2018 19:05 |  #2

I see a wrong forum


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
22,785 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 303
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jan 10, 2018 20:30 |  #3

I see dead batteries


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff, sirui

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,038 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1798
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jan 10, 2018 20:46 |  #4

ed rader wrote in post #18538329 (external link)
I see dead batteries

LMAO:twisted::twisted::twisted:


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
spamster
Senior Member
Avatar
893 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 12
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Jan 10, 2018 21:26 as a reply to  @ ed rader's post |  #5

Dead batteries mean no need to stare at a scratchy LCD.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,206 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1311
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jan 10, 2018 22:08 |  #6

fplstudio wrote in post #18538227 (external link)
I have been enjoying Canon for more than a decade when I started with my fisr DSLR, the Canon 10 D. Then I progressively upgraded to 20D > 50D > 6D > 5DSR and collected many L lenses.
I feel a bit frustrated to see very little improvements in what Canon has given us in the last 2-3 years when compared to the competition, to the extent that it seems they are one or more generations behind Sony.
I reckon Canon is still ahead in terms of pure imaging but it is the first time I start to see those benefts really struggling against all functionalities of bodies like the new A7R iii. I am not talking dsrl vs. mirrorless but how apparent it is that competitors make Canon's bodies feel quite obsolete.
Do you feel the same?
What do you see at the horizon?

I don't know what is coming from Canon, but the flashy bells and whistles a lot of these are marketing just aren't fleshed out well enough for some of us.

They entice with crazy high frame rates, but then have such limitation on when those can be achieved or which settings they can be achieved with that it reduces those 'bonuses' to gimmicks.

Or they remove the optical vf and then make you choose between using a tiny lcd screen that sucks additional power out of already power-hungry devices or an electronic viewfinder that has such poor color reproduction and refresh rate that you get a headache and poor evaluation of your scene. Additionally, if the sun/light is where you frequently want it (behind you, front or side-lighting your subject, LCDs rapidly get difficult or impossible to view. You also lose the stability for hand-held shooting that comes from a 'classic' pose from using the viewfinder and not holding the unit out at a

For all of the improvements they're bringing (dual pixel AF, focus peaking, etc), these things wind up making the device more difficult to actually *use*, IMO.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,619 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4907
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 10, 2018 22:47 |  #7

Snydremark wrote in post #18538383 (external link)
I don't know what is coming from Canon, but the flashy bells and whistles a lot of these are marketing just aren't fleshed out well enough for some of us.

They entice with crazy high frame rates, but then have such limitation on when those can be achieved or which settings they can be achieved with that it reduces those 'bonuses' to gimmicks.

Or they remove the optical vf and then make you choose between using a tiny lcd screen that sucks additional power out of already power-hungry devices or an electronic viewfinder that has such poor color reproduction and refresh rate that you get a headache and poor evaluation of your scene. Additionally, if the sun/light is where you frequently want it (behind you, front or side-lighting your subject, LCDs rapidly get difficult or impossible to view. You also lose the stability for hand-held shooting that comes from a 'classic' pose from using the viewfinder and not holding the unit out at a

For all of the improvements they're bringing (dual pixel AF, focus peaking, etc), these things wind up making the device more difficult to actually *use*, IMO.

What's so hard to use? Hit the eye focus button, locks onto the closest eye and doesn't let go. Compose, shoot. Don't see nothing gimmicky about that or 10 fps with continuous tracking.

Touch to select AF point... Not very difficult either. Or joystick for conventional folk.

Z100 battery is known to go thousands of frames, I've read of 3000-8000 for sports photogs. Went to the adjustment park, shoot from 11am to 8pm with 66% left... Seems satisfactory.

I do agree this the belongs somewhere else


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,206 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1311
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jan 11, 2018 00:02 |  #8

Charlie wrote in post #18538399 (external link)
What's so hard to use? Hit the eye focus button, locks onto the closest eye and doesn't let go. Compose, shoot. Don't see nothing gimmicky about that or 10 fps with continuous tracking.

Touch to select AF point... Not very difficult either. Or joystick for conventional folk.

Z100 battery is known to go thousands of frames, I've read of 3000-8000 for sports photogs. Went to the adjustment park, shoot from 11am to 8pm with 66% left... Seems satisfactory.

I do agree this the belongs somewhere else

Closest eye very well may not be the one you want; hard to compose and shoot (or select your AF point, etc) when you can't see the screen through the glare. If they're actually getting continuous AF on those systems at fulll resolution, I that's a much better step up than when I last looked at any of the 'high performance' ILC/mirrorless bodies. Impressive battery life at those stats, if they're consistent and not 'someone got a good battery that day' deals.

If it works for ya it works for ya; they're all tools. I just don't find a lot of them particularly functional/useful until they iron out some issues in the function and or hardware lineups (i.e native glass, not adapted) Even then, they certainly don't hold anywhere close to enough appeal to try and switch up an existing lens lineup. I wouldn't even come close to try and argue that it's a bad investment if you're picking a path to go down; I just have seen more people make wholesale 'system' switches only to find it's simply a "greener grass" scenario followed by buyer's remorse over the time and energy it took to switch.

Of course, I've seen the same pattern just moving to new bodies w/in the same manufacturer..so, <shrug>


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
1,575 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 130
Joined Mar 2008
Post edited 4 months ago by elitejp.
     
Jan 11, 2018 00:29 |  #9

The eye af looks amazing. To me its probably one of the best advancements for portrait photography. The af spread is also quite good. I can deal with bad battery life (even though the a7r3 doesnt have that prob anymore) but what I dont like doing is focusing and then recomposing or shots missing focus. Not saying canon is bad but for my style which is 90% people I think sony has had canon beat for a long time. But im also coming from a 6d so that needs to be taken into consideration.


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,054 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2831
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 11, 2018 01:56 |  #10

Snydremark wrote in post #18538383 (external link)
They entice with crazy high frame rates, but then have such limitation on when those can be achieved or which settings they can be achieved with that it reduces those 'bonuses' to gimmicks.

This is what concerns me. Thing is, I don't know whether or not I need to be concerned.......but things they've done in the past make me suspicious and hesitant to "buy in".

For example, I remember years ago hearing about such and such a camera having such better high ISO performance, and then the truth comes out that it really wasn't a sensor-level improvement at all, but that instead they were just applying some type of noise reduction to the files in the camera. That's right - files that were supposedly RAW files, that were being compared to other manufacturer's RAW files, were actually having some NR processing being done to them by default, in-camera, without the common user even being aware of it. Sheesh!

Another example is the new A9 that was just released. At first I heard that it would shoot at 20 frames per second. Then later, more details are disclosed and I learn that it doesn't shoot full-bit uncompressed RAW images at 20 FPS, but rather some lesser-bit, compressed type of file. So, if you want the highest bit, uncompressed RAWs, you're not going to be up at 20 FPS.

So these things in the past, where it seems to promise some great thing, and then I learn that the thing isn't quite as great as they made it seem, well, that has me suspicious. Can I really trust that every single claim is 100% true? I sure hope so, but past history has me gun-shy.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ShadowHillsPhoto
Senior Member
Avatar
505 posts
Gallery: 156 photos
Likes: 1084
Joined Aug 2015
Location: Schoharie, NY
     
Jan 11, 2018 08:17 |  #11

I like some of the things Sony has been doing with their cameras, and if I didn't rely heavily on long glass I would be very interested in giving them a try. If someone could build an adapter that would allow 1DXII level AF with the big Canon primes on a Sony body i would be all over it, at least as a secondary body.

Without that, well... someone call me when they release an E-mount 600mm f4. Then again, considering the ridiculous prices Sony want for their lenses, maybe don't bother. I find it incredibly ironic that Sony shooters have spent years extolling the virtues of in body image stabilization, claiming that lenses could be lighter and cheaper without lens based IS and that Canon was ripping us off by putting it in each lens, and yet the non-stabilized A-mount 500mm f4 is 27% more expensive than Nikons offering and an astounding 44% more expensive than Canon's (and also the heaviest of the three).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,759 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 7055
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited 6 months ago by mystik610. (3 edits in all)
     
Jan 11, 2018 09:56 |  #12

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18538469 (external link)
This is what concerns me. Thing is, I don't know whether or not I need to be concerned.......but things they've done in the past make me suspicious and hesitant to "buy in".

For example, I remember years ago hearing about such and such a camera having such better high ISO performance, and then the truth comes out that it really wasn't a sensor-level improvement at all, but that instead they were just applying some type of noise reduction to the files in the camera. That's right - files that were supposedly RAW files, that were being compared to other manufacturer's RAW files, were actually having some NR processing being done to them by default, in-camera, without the common user even being aware of it. Sheesh!

Another example is the new A9 that was just released. At first I heard that it would shoot at 20 frames per second. Then later, more details are disclosed and I learn that it doesn't shoot full-bit uncompressed RAW images at 20 FPS, but rather some lesser-bit, compressed type of file. So, if you want the highest bit, uncompressed RAWs, you're not going to be up at 20 FPS.

So these things in the past, where it seems to promise some great thing, and then I learn that the thing isn't quite as great as they made it seem, well, that has me suspicious. Can I really trust that every single claim is 100% true? I sure hope so, but past history has me gun-shy.

.


There's an immaterially slight drop in DR when you engage the fully electronic shutter. I've personally never noticed a difference between 14-bit and 12-bit files in shoots when I'd flip back and forth between the continuous shutter and single shot.

Black line (ES) represents the 12-bit raws:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Regarding comressed vs uncompressed raw...uncompressed raw came about because the interwebs were moaning about the idea of a compressed raw file. Sony added uncompressed raw via firmware in response to all of that, only for everyone to discover that the difference between an uncompressed and compressed raw are basically noticeable only in really extreme circumstances: 100% crops of extremely high contrast areas when the exposure is pushed heavily. For the type of a shooting where one would burst at 20fps, it's especially immaterial.


https://www.dpreview.c​om …ake-sony-uncompressed-raw (external link)

Most of us stick with good ole compressed raw even when shooting in the single shot modes that wouldn't necessitate it because the 'benefits' aren't worth it. 84mp uncompressed files eat up your memory card real fast :-)

focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,619 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4907
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 11, 2018 10:07 |  #13

Snydremark wrote in post #18538439 (external link)
Closest eye very well may not be the one you want; hard to compose and shoot (or select your AF point, etc) when you can't see the screen through the glare. If they're actually getting continuous AF on those systems at fulll resolution, I that's a much better step up than when I last looked at any of the 'high performance' ILC/mirrorless bodies. Impressive battery life at those stats, if they're consistent and not 'someone got a good battery that day' deals.

If it works for ya it works for ya; they're all tools. I just don't find a lot of them particularly functional/useful until they iron out some issues in the function and or hardware lineups (i.e native glass, not adapted) Even then, they certainly don't hold anywhere close to enough appeal to try and switch up an existing lens lineup. I wouldn't even come close to try and argue that it's a bad investment if you're picking a path to go down; I just have seen more people make wholesale 'system' switches only to find it's simply a "greener grass" scenario followed by buyer's remorse over the time and energy it took to switch.

Of course, I've seen the same pattern just moving to new bodies w/in the same manufacturer..so, <shrug>

Closest eye is what you want, havent ever seen a photo where the back eye was desired.

Sony offers you an olive branch when switching, unlike other manufactures. The let you try before you buy, with the metabones and mc-11 adapters. Consider their Artisans were promoting the metabones and compatibility it gives. Imagine shooting your 24-70f2.8 ii / 35Lii / 85L/ 135L with IBIS AND eye focus. Of course Sony holds back the goods for their native lenses, but they give you a taste of what's offered. Heck, you can easily rent a body and adapter compared to renting a body and several lenses if switching to any other brand. I didnt switch to Sony, I transitioned, and still look and bought EF lenses as of last year, havent owned a canon body for years. Sure, the sony lenses cost more, but you're old canon lenses do have some value. Sell and buy used, it didnt cost a whole lot to start the transition, only the layout for the body and adapters. 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, not outrageously priced, so native it is. You'll just have to acknowledge that you're in some sort of beta program without a complete product line, but regardless, there's a ton of offering in a few short years. I think there was like 10 lenses released last year? kind of crazy release cycle.

I'll address the rest of the post with Tom's

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18538469 (external link)
This is what concerns me. Thing is, I don't know whether or not I need to be concerned.......but things they've done in the past make me suspicious and hesitant to "buy in".

For example, I remember years ago hearing about such and such a camera having such better high ISO performance, and then the truth comes out that it really wasn't a sensor-level improvement at all, but that instead they were just applying some type of noise reduction to the files in the camera. That's right - files that were supposedly RAW files, that were being compared to other manufacturer's RAW files, were actually having some NR processing being done to them by default, in-camera, without the common user even being aware of it. Sheesh!

Another example is the new A9 that was just released. At first I heard that it would shoot at 20 frames per second. Then later, more details are disclosed and I learn that it doesn't shoot full-bit uncompressed RAW images at 20 FPS, but rather some lesser-bit, compressed type of file. So, if you want the highest bit, uncompressed RAWs, you're not going to be up at 20 FPS.

So these things in the past, where it seems to promise some great thing, and then I learn that the thing isn't quite as great as they made it seem, well, that has me suspicious. Can I really trust that every single claim is 100% true? I sure hope so, but past history has me gun-shy.

.

yes, there is an issue with full bit files at full speed. It's trickery that sony uses to write real fast, and they do write very fast regardless of that trickery, so it's not a total scam. The buffer on the A9 is some crazy 240 files or something, and on the A7r3 is 100 files..... that's pretty darn big, and they also have a buffer life bar you can watch refill, which takes about 20 seconds on a completely depleted buffer. I dont know what competing cameras offer, but it seemed very fast.

issue on the bit rate and general quality of compressed raw..... it's not that big of a deal. Consider the A7r2 scores a 98 on dxomark. The score was achieved BEFORE uncompressed raw was offered. The original A7r has a dxomark score of 95, and doesnt even offer uncompressed raw. The A7r3 scores a 100 on dxomark. There arent wild differences in image quality among the sensors other than color science, the latter models are more "Canon" like. To my understanding on bit depth, it makes little difference the higher your iso goes. it's a 2 bit loss, a good eye can spot the color difference with base ISO landscapes, others cant. Beyond that, image degradation makes it impossible to determine. In practice, I simply dont worry about it, it's too minor to keep me occupied.

an article about 14 vs 12 bit, not sony camera, but sony sensor: https://photographylif​e.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw (external link)


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,169 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 2906
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Jan 11, 2018 12:59 |  #14

ed rader wrote in post #18538329 (external link)
I see dead batteries

I see someone who has an ill-informed opinion based on older tech.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jebrady03
Member
Avatar
164 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 102
Joined Jan 2014
     
Jan 12, 2018 07:40 |  #15

I see a lot of people hanging out in a Canon echo chamber, clinging to criticisms (some founded, others not so much) of the past. Don't worry folks. I was one of you once, too. Then I tried an A7RII, just for s***s and giggles, and within 3 months had transitioned completely to Sony. So, there's hope for you, too.

For portrait shooters and event shooters, honestly, you're better served by Sony. Eye AF is a friggin miracle. Just this feature alone has cut down the number of shots I take by at least half because I don't worry about whether I nailed focus or not. And that's coming from someone who performed AFMA on every Canon lens and often, at the location I was shooting. Additionally, I spend less time post-processing my images because focus and recompose and focusing for cropping later are a thing of the past, thanks to AF points being spread across the frame. The 6D was VERY restrictive for composing with AF points over the eye, but the 5D Mark IV and 5Ds I had were restrictive as well - just not as much. With the A7RII and A9, I just compose the shot like I want and press the button I have assigned to Eye AF and take the picture. Done. No need to take another (except for expressions which would happen in either system) and no need to crop the image later because I framed loosely to ensure an AF point was over the subjects eye at the time I took the image. Also, the no-blackout viewfinder of the A9 is amazing. There's literally zero perceptible lag (I often shoot with both eyes open) and although EVF's of the past would give me eye strain and headaches, the one on the A9 and A7RIII are incredible. I have 20/15 vision and I don't even see pixelation in the EVF. It's pretty much flawless.

As for battery life, the last wedding I shot was 8 hours of coverage. I never swapped batteries and the A9 was my primary camera with the A7RII my secondary camera. I took a total of 1100 shots, leaving both cameras on all day long except when I took a break to eat, and both had more than 25% battery life left. 1-minute time-out on both of them. About 70% of the shots were with the A9.

If you've not tried the A7RIII or A9, don't talk s**t. Just... don't. Stay silent instead. Or, even better, borrow or rent them and try them for yourself. And not for 2-3 days. That's not enough time. Heck, buy them used (especially the A9 which can be had for more than $1000 off the MSRP and barely used as so many people are happier with the A7RIII resolution) along with a lens or two in your favorite focal length. That's why I did - I bought the A7RII, 55/1.8, Batis 85mm, and a Metabones adapter. I knew that buying used would keep me from getting hammered with depreciation and that I could try the gear out for several weeks or months and essentially chalk up any loss in value to a VERY CHEAP rental. Also, get the RRS base plate to go with the A9 or A7RIII. It COMPLETELY changes the handling of the camera. It's incredible. Those simple purchases will allow you to TRULY evaluate the system rather than repeating what you hear in your favorite Canon echo chamber which is full of outdated information and plenty of misinformation as well.

Or, just continue down the arrogant, echo chamber path you're on. Whatever. Doesn't matter to me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,818 views & 82 likes for this thread
Long time Canon user....but this A7R iii looks too good!
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Barryvg
835 guests, 404 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.