Canon and Sony body owners

umphotography wrote in post #18674966
Got to say it loud and clear

I think Sony is a excellent camera

I have been a canon shooter since 1974. I have tried other brands and seriously considered a jump to Nikon when the D5 came out. My Opinion is there is no better camera on the market than the Nikon D5. It does everything well. I waited for the announcement on Canons new sensor. Glad I did.

With the announcement the Canon1Dx2- FINALLY, something that is in the ballpark with the Sony Sensor and an AF system thats phenominal. Much like the D5. Canon shooters were in the game with sensor technology

When I get on a Nikon D5 and have some help from Nikon shooters with camera functions. The D5 was a no miss. All I had to do was ask my buddy, I do this with my Canons, how you do this with the D5 or D750 ? We set the camera up and it works the way I would expect it to work

I Tried same approach with the Sony systems. They are just totally foreign to what I have used so much in the past. There is more to do and figure out on them than there is on the canons. I would think that If I Invested more time with the systems i would feel more comfortable on them and probably a lot less apprehensive about using them.

From what I can tell, And I have a lot of experience shooting weddings and events ( 550 + weddings ), Canon and Nikon are superior systems for AF performance even with the Eye focus that Sony Offers. And thats likely because I know how to use the AF on a Canon like the back of my hand. Its just second nature to me Where as the Sony always felt foreign and I never know what the hell its going to do.

SO- IM NOT THE GUY that will be able to make a fair assessment of the Sony Camera system

BUT

What I have concluded is the following

1- The adapters work OK and you will get mixed results with Canons L lens on a Sony Camera in GREAT Light

2- The Adapters DONT work well in low ambient light where a subject is moving with your Canon L lens- poor results reported by many experience pros

3- If you are using all Native Sony Glass, with a Sony Body, performance issues from those that are invested in the Sony systems are minimal

SO- Its back to where I left it when I ordered the 5D4

1- I do not want two camera systems in my bag for an event like a wedding
2- I do not want to go through the process of investing time and efforts to learn another system and work with 2 systems at an event
3- I Am too invested in canon glass and OCF flash set ups to reinvest in another set of camera lens
4- Size is negligible. Put an adapters and a L lens on and you are so close in just not worth arguing about
5- I would need a grip for a Sony camera

Lastly

There is virtually zero differences in sensor performance ( despite what any loyal fan boy from any brand will say ) from a Sony sensor, Nikon D5, and a Canon 1Dx2 and 5D4 sensor- We are talking 1/2 to 1 stop differences in performance and you have to zoom into these files at 100% to really see it.

Nikon D5 uses Sony sensor technology and Sonys top bodies are all going to get you to 25000 ISO and possible up to 51000 ISO use
1Dx2 and 5D4 uses Canon sensor technology and its going to get you to 25000 ISO when captured properly

Due to the above-----I stayed canon and went with a 5D4 to compliment the 1Dx2- Nothing I cant capture and I did not have to invest in additional glass.

I reported some of the issues on this thread because I felt like everyone was contributing objectively based on their experiences with the gear- This was never intended to be a Fan Boy Thread so please keep it this way. There are a lot of shooters that are thinking about mirrorless and Sony. I want them to have useful information so thats why the thread remains open to discussion

Thanks
Mike

That’s a pretty fair assessment.

The only other thing I’d add is that a really big advantage to mirrorless cameras is that the microfocus accuracy is dead-on and consistent with mirrorless cameras because the AF system is built into the actual image sensor. DSLR’s are notorious for being inconsistent at a microfocus level, because the AF system is separated from the image sensor. This is particularly important for high resolution bodies where the threshold for front/back focused shots is narrower. So no more MFA (which is never perfect), no more taking multiple exposures ‘just in case’, and no more throwing out key shots because they are front/back focused ever so slightly.

This applies when using adapted glass too….. so despite adapted glass having a in low light and tracking capabilities, Canon lenses actually perform better on Sony bodies than on native Canon DSLR’s with regards to AF accuracy.

As a portrait guy who often shoots fast apertures, this was a key reason I made the switch to Sony, despite even now still owning some Canon glass.

I totally agree with your conclusion - makes total sense. I would do likewise. Your analysis on items 1 -3 is spot on. (and 4 for the most part)

Item 4 is a bigger difference than you would think though - particularly for things like weddings or events that are hours long. But it's not enough to justify changing over in my opinion for most.

Item 5 - probably. My hands are very average sized, so I have no issues. In fact for my old 7D, I had a grip, but in the end, scraped it. I need fast mobility, and he extra size and battery wasn't worth it to me. I need to be able to run and shot. Again, perhaps its my age, but for me less is more.

Where I will disagree with you though is the extra sensor dynamics isn't about being able to go to ISO 25,000 or even 51,000. They all (camera brands) produce images I wouldn't use professionally at those ISOs. Where that extra stop comes in is at ISO 1,000 and holding your highlights while getting better shadow detail. It's something that tests like DPReview's test boards don't show real world impact. Its a subtle thing. And something the end client may not even notice. But when your working a file, it keeps from having to make that decision do I go after and save my highlights at the loss of shadow detail, or visa-versa.

Shooters that can dial in their exposure perfectly every time, that work in controlled environments, would see the change that much. But if you are shooting something like an eagle flying low over a lake with a low sun, you get to keep the lighting on the tips of the water, the detail in the white feathers, and still have the surrounding trees have detail too. It's all subtle. And its present in all the color channels, so you just have that extra inch of flexibility in post.

But in your day to day shooting, chances are you will mess up more bouncing between brands more than anything you might gain with the benefits of Sony's upper hand in dynamic range. Good solid decision...

mystik610 wrote in post #18675562
That’s a pretty fair assessment.

The only other thing I’d add is that a really big advantage to mirrorless cameras is that the microfocus accuracy is dead-on and consistent with mirrorless cameras because the AF system is built into the actual image sensor. DSLR’s are notorious for being inconsistent at a microfocus level, because the AF system is separated from the image sensor. This is particularly important for high resolution bodies where the threshold for front/back focused shots is narrower. So no more MFA (which is never perfect), no more taking multiple exposures ‘just in case’, and no more throwing out key shots because they are front/back focused ever so slightly.

This applies when using adapted glass too….. so despite adapted glass having a in low light and tracking capabilities, Canon lenses actually perform better on Sony bodies than on native Canon DSLR’s with regards to AF accuracy.

As a portrait guy who often shoots fast apertures, this was a key reason I made the switch to Sony, despite even now still owning some Canon glass.

I appreciate the lack of using micro AF adjust with my Sony but I almost have zero af issues with my Micro adjusted LGlass.

The fact that Sony does a mediocre job at AF-S does not fully meet my faster method of focus recompose rather than joystick AF point methods in many situations. I virtually get perfect focus and desired composition using my canon vs lower hit rate using AF-S with my Sony.

Working hard to change my style of shooting with Sony using AF-C and joystick. This is slower on the draw unless I keep things center point shooting. Focus recompose is very quick with no fear of OOF shots even at almost wide open apertures with a mirrored body in my case.

My experience with canon native glass on my 5d3/4 totally out performs my mc11 with A7iii especially in low light.

Very curious to see how the canon Mirrorless camera will perform when it hits the market.

Many photogs that I know that moved from Nikon or Canon openly admit the struggles of using AF-C only with Sony to land shots reliably in events shooting while trying to get perfect composition using joystick while running and gunning. They suck it up because of full transition to mirrorless Sony and make due. I know I will miss the occasional shot with Sony with the composition I want but deal with composition in post work.

Even my Fuji is noticeably more accurate than Sony using AF-S or recompose methods. Many that I know shooting mirrored bodies use focussing recompose methods and joystick.

Sony just requires a totally different technique in shooting style in my case using AF-C. Which does work well for my casual usage and family documentation and portraits- and not my events photography.

Preference wise I still get drawn to canon and fuji render for portraits. Fuji has the cooked, built in eye candy processed look that many consumer/ non photographers love as they have been brain washed in acceptance as the norm for a portrait “processed” look in magazines.

Events work I am alright with Sony render for events work. The realism in Sony render is so different to my canon and Fuji. This is the reason why appreciate different rendering from different brands. .

AlanU wrote in post #18675608
I appreciate the lack of using micro AF adjust with my Sony but I almost have zero af issues with my Micro adjusted LGlass.

The fact that Sony does a mediocre job at AF-S does not fully meet my faster method of focus recompose rather than joystick AF point methods in many situations. I virtually get perfect focus and desired composition using my canon vs lower hit rate using AF-S with my Sony.

Working hard to change my style of shooting with Sony using AF-C and joystick. This is slower on the draw unless I keep things center point shooting. Focus recompose is very quick with no fear of OOF shots even at almost wide open apertures with a mirrored body in my case.

My experience with canon native glass on my 5d3/4 totally out performs my mc11 with A7iii especially in low light.

Very curious to see how the canon Mirrorless camera will perform when it hits the market.

Many photogs that I know that moved from Nikon or Canon openly admit the struggles of using AF-C only with Sony to land shots reliably in events shooting while trying to get perfect composition using joystick while running and gunning. They suck it up because of full transition to mirrorless Sony and make due. I know I will miss the occasional shot with Sony with the composition I want but deal with composition in post work.

Even my Fuji is noticeably more accurate than Sony using AF-S or recompose methods. Many that I know shooting mirrored bodies use focussing recompose methods and joystick.

Sony just requires a totally different technique in shooting style in my case using AF-C. Which does work well for my casual usage and family documentation and portraits- and not my events photography.

Preference wise I still get drawn to canon and fuji render for portraits. Fuji has the cooked, built in eye candy processed look that many consumer/ non photographers love as they have been brain washed in acceptance as the norm for a portrait “processed” look in magazines.

Events work I am alright with Sony render for events work. The realism in Sony render is so different to my canon and Fuji. This is the reason why appreciate different rendering from different brands. .

Why don't you try eye focus tracking...that's the most accurate for shooting people. I know photogs that shoot weddings and live by it. Rather than trying to force something that might not be as good with Sony...why not try something it excels about.

In my 5d2 days...I was forced to focus and recompose because the centre focus point was the only one that could be relied upon...but with Sony I rarely focus and recompose as there are better more effective methods.
Things change...maybe try changing to keep up.

AlanU wrote in post #18675608
I appreciate the lack of using micro AF adjust with my Sony but I almost have zero af issues with my Micro adjusted LGlass.

The fact that Sony does a mediocre job at AF-S does not fully meet my faster method of focus recompose rather than joystick AF point methods in many situations. I virtually get perfect focus and desired composition using my canon vs lower hit rate using AF-S with my Sony.

Working hard to change my style of shooting with Sony using AF-C and joystick. This is slower on the draw unless I keep things center point shooting. Focus recompose is very quick with no fear of OOF shots even at almost wide open apertures with a mirrored body in my case.

My experience with canon native glass on my 5d3/4 totally out performs my mc11 with A7iii especially in low light.

Very curious to see how the canon Mirrorless camera will perform when it hits the market.

Many photogs that I know that moved from Nikon or Canon openly admit the struggles of using AF-C only with Sony to land shots reliably in events shooting while trying to get perfect composition using joystick while running and gunning. They suck it up because of full transition to mirrorless Sony and make due. I know I will miss the occasional shot with Sony with the composition I want but deal with composition in post work.

Even my Fuji is noticeably more accurate than Sony using AF-S or recompose methods. Many that I know shooting mirrored bodies use focussing recompose methods and joystick.

Sony just requires a totally different technique in shooting style in my case using AF-C. Which does work well for my casual usage and family documentation and portraits- and not my events photography.

Preference wise I still get drawn to canon and fuji render for portraits. Fuji has the cooked, built in eye candy processed look that many consumer/ non photographers love as they have been brain washed in acceptance as the norm for a portrait “processed” look in magazines.

Events work I am alright with Sony render for events work. The realism in Sony render is so different to my canon and Fuji. This is the reason why appreciate different rendering from different brands. .

Af-C + BBAF
Or
AF-C + Focus Hold
And recompose.

Honestly, your focus recompose breaks even conventional Canon methods.

Charlie wrote in post #18675650
Af-C + BBAF
Or
AF-C + Focus Hold
And recompose.

Honestly, your focus recompose breaks even conventional Canon methods.

Charlie!!!! You sparked an idea that I've been searching for!

My Sigma 24mm ART does not have a focus hold. I've now customized my center button dial button to "eye focus" and I use AEL customized for focus hold. For the longest time I've been using AEL for eye focus.

I've done some preliminary tests and ........YES!!! now I can use AF-C then hold the AEL for "recompose". In the situations where I need eye focus I can press the dial's center button.

Focus recompose has worked incredibly well for me in Automotive events as well as hired events work.

I'm thinking of buying a GM16-35 very soon (or 85Lf/1.4IS) . I can use the button on the GM 16-35 f/2.8 lens for that application of recomposing.

Thank you!

AlanU wrote in post #18676060
Charlie!!!! You sparked an idea that I've been searching for!

My Sigma 24mm ART does not have a focus hold. I've now customized my center button dial button to "eye focus" and I use AEL customized for focus hold. For the longest time I've been using AEL for eye focus.

I've done some preliminary tests and ........YES!!! now I can use AF-C then hold the AEL for "recompose". In the situations where I need eye focus I can press the dial's center button.

Focus recompose has worked incredibly well for me in Automotive events as well as hired events work.

I'm thinking of buying a GM16-35 very soon (or 85Lf/1.4IS) . I can use the button on the GM 16-35 f/2.8 lens for that application of recomposing.

Thank you!

Cool, hope it works out, big fan of focus hold, as I use that technique myself. Also have AEL mapped to that. Would rather have it mapped to AF-on but that’s eye af, and center is for magnification....

My R2 has the switch button config, which makes it a little confusing sometimes....
P

I have been shooting with a 5D4 and A7RII for close to a year now. I'm still trying to reconcile it in my mind and get a kit that I feel is balanced. I'm still more comfortable shooting with the Canon. On a recent cruise in Alaska, I used mostly the Canon 24-105 on both bodies (and a rented 100-400 on the Canon) One particular day I took a tour that took the White Pass railroad up to the summit and back to the port. I used the Canon/24-105 all the way up, then the Sony/24-105 on the way down. Sure light changed some, but it was very close. At first glance, I felt like the Canon images were much better. However, after playing with them in LR Classic, the Sony images that looked washed out and what looked like completely blown highlights recovered to look better than the Canon shots with similar treatment.

So for me, the cameras will continue to live side by side - somehow in harmony. I'm still on the fence about selling most of my primes on both sides and getting the Sigma Art 35/50/85 trio that would perform better on the Sony and should be at worst a wash with the Canon's I have.

AlanU wrote in post #18673958
Osa, using different brands is like selecting different paint brushes I definitely couldn't shoot Fuji as a primary. Prime example of gear differences is to compare a high res Sony A7Riii image vs a 24MP fuji crop sensor for landscape. They have completely different render.

Osa, when I had my mancave studios in a dedicated suite in my home I had fun shooting family sessions and head shots. Learning light is fun with beauty dishes, strip boxes, shoot through umbrella's, octadomes and all that stuff. Now I use my studio lights to light up 250+ group shots for receptions and other events. Dropped my studio for family/kids recreation room. I was into studio settings but that was the time Vegabond lithium mini's and manual strobes, elinchrom with skyports were more common. Now the inexpensive built in lithium Godox sudio gear is appealing to the wallet and functionality with TTL. Right now is good times for cheap with great tech!!

When I typed "Learning light" I wasn't referring to studio light exclusively.:p

Appreciate everyones comments

I am waiting on canons announcement for there mirrorless as well

Nikon announced but I fully expect it to be a Sony body in disguise

Canon will not be that far behind.......I think

This is the best discussion on this topic I've seen. I too wait to see what the mirrorless full frame will offer. Apparently my GAS is kicking in and I'm eyeballing a 5D4 pretty hard, but want to wait till black Friday.... so far away...

ksbal wrote in post #18679305
This is the best discussion on this topic ive see. I too wait to see what the mirrorless full frame will offer. Apparently my GAS is kicking in and I'm eyeballing a 5D4 pretty hard, but want to wait till black friday.... so far away...

https://www.online-stopwatch.com …full-screen/black-friday/

ksbal wrote in post #18679305
This is the best discussion on this topic ive see. I too wait to see what the mirrorless full frame will offer. Apparently my GAS is kicking in and I'm eyeballing a 5D4 pretty hard, but want to wait till black friday.... so far away...

Canon to Sony topic is hot currently but it'll possibly change.

The 5d4 is a very remarkable body. With my typical workflow in LR I honestly can see a bump in IQ possibly due to the slight increase in MP. My 16-35 f/2.8mk2 appears to have increased in IQ in the sharpness and micro contrast department. I will say for some strange reason that same adapted canon glass on my A7iii seems to be sharper than my 5dmk3 ?? Weird but this is my observation.

When I grab the 5d4 I just notice how I'm getting so use to a tilting LCD screen on my Fuji and A73. This is where I do find how different features of a camera can be well appreciated. The lack of tilting screen on my 5d4 changes my shooting style a bit.

I'll say my mirrored bodies flat out WORKS! The high iso and dynamic range just gives you this sense of confidence when recoving from human error occurs or when you really want the max in IQ in certain situations. Using my A7iii really doesn't give me this massive weight savings when I adapt Canon glass or if I start buying GMaster Sony native glass.

The excitement of the Canon mirrorless should really be analyzed. Using adapters for EF glass or even if the body has EF mount there is no major savings in weight. The smaller body can possibly be less ergonomic and less balance. If canon produces a special mount for full frame glass for the mirrorless system it's NOT COST effective for a pro. Even adapters for the EF native lens will be just as "long" if not longer (looking top view) as a mirrored body with direct mount EF glass.

I think M43, Sony A6xxx series and Fuji are really the mirrorless systems that truly shout out "small form factor". Small body and smaller lens (to an extent) allows compact backpacks and lighter in weight.

The new Nikon mirrorless will be just as clunky as a full mirrored Nikon D850. Slight weight savings but less balanced and less ergonomic. The "benefits" is truly the operator possibly appreciating "wysiwyg" pre and post shutter actuation, possibly in body stabilization, potential proprietary smaller mount lenses as well as incorporating current FX large full frame glass. Potentially getting more AF hunting issues in low light/contrast vs the D850 as well as the loss of utilizing the red focus assist in the external flash in low light when bouncing flash.

To keep this topic real I guess mirrorless will shave some weight. The physical size of the body will fit easier in a bag. For pro's using full frame glass with mirrorless is not saving a huge amount of weight with Pro glass. Ergonomics will vary from individual to individual. I love using electric view finders to chimp the image after the photo is taken. Metering the exposure viewing the EVF does help prevent highlight blowouts too.

One thing I still find is using my Canon DSLR the push of the shutter button is real time with zero lag. This is purely a personal preference. My Fuji and Sony still have this propagation delay that feels "different" but possibly is a meaningless thing really. The 5d4 just feels like its incredibly responsive.

For a working professional that gets exactly what they want from a mirrored body should stick with it. Possibly buy a capable Sony mirrorless body for experimentation and spend $$$$$$ony native glass. See if it jives with your style.

Personally for myself (no one should care as it's just my personal preference). I like shooting my Canon gear for events that mainly consist of people/ receptions. Using mirrored even years of shooting mirrorless I find the mirrored body is like comfort food while shooting. I'm honestly blown away by Sony for my car events documentation I've been doing this summer. I'm utilizing the tilt screen alot and really taking advantage of the insane high iso performance and dynamic range. If I owned the 6dmk2 with tilt screen I would be missing that sensor performance and sony render from my A7iii.

What people will notice is Sony render is completely different to Canon. Editing photos in LR the Sony look on human subjects is different from the slightly more calm look from Canon. Sony is definitely more punchy. You must tame Sony a lot more than Canon....my experience anyways. So far the easiest workflow to date is shooting my fuji system......it's almost effortless! Sony is "different" but seems to feel it's more work over Canon.

I don't doubt the "easier" statement at all. And I agree that for the most natural skin tones, Canon has been better than the Sony. But shooting the Sony has also taken me over into the dark world of shooting 4k video as well. And I've learned a lot from this. One thing is shooting flat video is way better because in post you can get your clips to match color tone much easier. Taking that into photography, I've also started shooting in flat color profiles. Then using the same color lut's for video over on photography, I have a far more consistent look to my images. It's something I am going to try to put into production with this falls shooting season.

The other thing is because the Sony file has more information, it provides for more latitude. This means you "can" adjust more if you want. I was moving some of my last years VT game pictures over to archives (all were shot on 1 Dx) and decided to play with a few. What I noticed was in lightroom is I adusted something like shadows or highlights on the Canon shot, at about between +/- 45 - 50 on the slider the files started to loose image quality. With the Sony files I can go almost all the way to the ends before the colors start looking wanky.

For a good portion of the shots, in the end result it was a huge advantage I needed to leverage. But there was the difference still. The extra headroom is really nice to have when you need it. But extra headroom also leads to more options, which leads to more complex workflows. It's a two edged sword.... and one you can cause a lot of self inflicted extra work with.

Croasdail wrote in post #18679457
I don't doubt the "easier" statement at all. And I agree that for the most natural skin tones, Canon has been better than the Sony. But shooting the Sony has also taken me over into the dark world of shooting 4k video as well. And I've learned a lot from this. One thing is shooting flat video is way better because in post you can get your clips to match color tone much easier. Taking that into photography, I've also started shooting in flat color profiles. Then using the same color lut's for video over on photography, I have a far more consistent look to my images. It's something I am going to try to put into production with this falls shooting season.

The other thing is because the Sony file has more information, it provides for more latitude. This means you "can" adjust more if you want. I was moving some of my last years VT game pictures over to archives (all were shot on 1 Dx) and decided to play with a few. What I noticed was in lightroom is I adusted something like shadows or highlights on the Canon shot, at about between +/- 45 - 50 on the slider the files started to loose image quality. With the Sony files I can go almost all the way to the ends before the colors start looking wanky.

For a good portion of the shots, in the end result it was a huge advantage I needed to leverage. But there was the difference still. The extra headroom is really nice to have when you need it. But extra headroom also leads to more options, which leads to more complex workflows. It's a two edged sword.... and one you can cause a lot of self inflicted extra work with.

PP video is so different from photos though. I feel that I'm getting really good IQ from video, granted, I hardly ever shoot in harsh light, mostly indoors are golden hour with soft light. For that reason, I havent shot a flat profile as I dont feel I need it.

what are you using to process videos vs photos?