Canon to Sony Qs: EVF, Skin Tones, ISO, Glass/AF, Metabones

hey guys

thinking about transitioning from a Canon 6D body to either an A7Riii or A7iii and I just had a few questions for those familiar with these bodies.

I considered the A7iii only till I realized that a used A7R3 is only a few hundred bucks more. So money is a tie there.

Here's my questions--feel free to weigh in with whatever you have experiences with!

- Glass. I have Canon glass that I want to use with the new body. Is one of these Sony bodies better than the other with adapted glass?
Any experience with these particular bits of glass and a Metabones V/5?
Is the AF friendlier to Canon glass on one over the other?

(My lenses: 16-35 2.8L II, 50mm 1.8, 100mm Macro 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L II, 300mm f/4L, with 1.4 and 2x teleconverters).


- EVF: Shooting with a macro lens at 1:1 or thereabouts is a very visually-cued process for me--for choosing when to shoot.
It's not something I do ALL the time, but I do enjoy it. Is the A7iii up to the task with the (good) second tier EVF? Or is the R3 worth the upgrade?


- ISO: On the other hand, I do enjoy shooting astro from time to time. Is the R3 noise factor a deal breaker compared to the A7iii?
This also factors in to me using natural light a lot.


- Skin Tone in RAW files. I hear a lot of kvetching about the Sony Skin Tone...trying to sort out how much is nitpicking vs reality.
Is the color science the same in both or are you finding that they're different in the real world? Especially for me coming from Canon?


I'm kinda weighing this slowly and heavily, because I kinda have to choose a camera body that will stay with me a while...I don't get to hop in and out of
camera bodies, glass and systems on my budget.

thank you kindly!

Honestly, if you have waited this long, you might as well wait a another month or two until Canon's FF mirrorless camera/s have been announced or released. Rumor is they will be announced Sept 4th and released before the holidays.

This thread has a YYYYUUUGGGEEE potential of...

I've used the metabones v5 and metabones speed booster with my L glass and generally speaking they work well. The 70-200 mk II particularly focuses really fast. But there is a wide range of performance between them. It's getting better, but still not all the same.

An example.... I have the Sony 85 f1.8. My Canon 85 f1.8 actually focuses faster when adapted. The sony is a sharpe lens, but it is rather leisurely in its focusing.

On the other hand I have a Sony 17-40L, and it just behaves odd sometimes. One day it focuses like it was native when adapted. Other days it will not focus on infinity...front focuses far too often. I end up falling back to manual focus in these cases - which is easy using focus peaking. The subject matter I use the wide zoom for lends itself to slower shooting and manual focus.

Everything else falls into the middle somewhere. If you are one who doesn't like manually tweaking your shots anyway, you may come away disappointed. Shooting is much more intentional using adapted glass... but the results can be quit satisfying. I really enjoy the end results of the canon glass with the dynamic range of the Sony seniors and after a lot of resistance, have fallen in love with the evf.

Don't expect it to be a painless transition. I have not used the metabones (either version) with a T/C and I generally avoid them anyway. So can't comment on that area. I have not fully committed to Sony, hence my adapted kit. Doing so has had its speed bumps.... but overall I like my existing kit more than I liked my Canon only kit.

Croasdail wrote in post #18692278
I've used the metabones v5 and metabones speed booster with my L glass and generally speaking they work well. The 70-200 mk II particularly focuses really fast. But there is a wide range of performance between them. It's getting better, but still not all the same....

thank you for this perspective! I guess I'm hoping it would be MOSTLY painless but that's probably not realistic.
What was the biggest hurdle and the hardest thing about shooting on a new system?
I hate feeling tripped up or hamstrung by the camera... especially for what they all cost!

Come for the title, stay for the worms my friend!

I understand that feeling and I won't do anything before the Canon announcement... but given their last few systems... you might find my lack of faith disturbing, but I'm not expecting anything earth shattering from them.
It would be delightful to be wrong about that...and I am kinda looking forward to the announcement.

Depends on what your AF expectations are if you're adapting glass. Adapted glass takes a hit in terms of low light performance, tracking capability, and initial focus acquisition for long focal lengths. It can work depending on what you shoot...The upside to adapting canon glass to sony is that eye AF works and the critical focus accuracy is much better. I find for posed portraiture, canon glass actually works better on a Sony body. That said, I dont trust adapted glass for wedding and event work.

Regarding skintones....a lot of what of the negativity towards sony colors is confirmation bias. Sony colors are different from canon and require a different workflows but that doesn't make them objectively worse. I.e. here's a blind test portrait color test o dpreview...in the comments people tended to prefer sony colors:


https://m.dpreview.com …n-1dx-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d5

Rogue,

I'll warn you that you'll have a very painful experience getting use to post processing work switching. The colour science is very different. Don't take that as a negative since "we humans" are adaptable. Canon "look" will look a lot different than Sony.

I'm finally at the point where I've put effort in changing my process when I go between Fuji, Canon and Sony.

For my particular situation I cannot imagine using Sony for hired event work with adapted Canon glass. Shooting in outdoor environments the Sigma MC11 adapter with Canon glass works very well. Indoors the setup works relatively well but not to the extend I'd use it for paid work. Your center point shooting with an external flash in an extremely dark venue you'll have no issues focus with red focus assist. I cannot trust using Sony adapted with Canon glass to be reliable.

If you shoot 6D I'm assuming you may use the "focus/recompose" techniques. If you want blurry or missed photos you'll have fun with that technique with the A7iii with adapted canon glass. I use the focus/recompose method often even with my 5dmk4. Shooting Sony A7iii I customized a button to hold AF once I lock on with my shutter button while in AF-C. That method still isn't remotely as accurate as focus / recompose with my Canon. AF-C with Sony is silly good!!!

I'm not expecting smooth sailing for most jumping Canon to Sony. Your 6D just locks AF instantly regardless of poor light. If you shoot adapted glass with Sony DO NOT expect similar performance. Focus hunting will be present with adapted glass.

I'm not holding my breath for a decent FF Canon mirrorless. It would be mind boggling to expect Canon's first FF mirrorless to match the A7iii performance. Canon.......please surprise me. I can hope mk2 or mk3 to catch up to Sony "hopefully".

Once you start using the A7iii you'll begin to see how there is great potential. Issue now is you'll need to pony up for $$$ native Sony glass to really utilize the system.

AlanU wrote in post #18692801
Rogue,

I'll warn you that you'll have a very painful experience getting use to post processing work switching. The colour science is very different. Don't take that as a negative since "we humans" are adaptable. Canon "look" will look a lot different than Sony.

I'm finally at the point where I've put effort in changing my process when I go between Fuji, Canon and Sony.

Alan, do you have a ColorChecker that you could shoot with all three (Fuji, Canon, Sony) and post (after neutralizing Color Balance) to the 4th grey patch, so we can see how all the other colors are reproduced by each camera? Shooting both with same lens on all three, and also with native brand lens on each body, could be useful.

Wilt wrote in post #18693132
Alan, do you have a ColorChecker that you could shoot with all three (Fuji, Canon, Sony) and post (after neutralizing Color Balance) to the 4th grey patch, so we can see how all the other colors are reproduced by each camera? Shooting both with same lens on all three, and also with native brand lens on each body, could be useful.

I do not adapt canon glass to Fuji. Doing so the AF performance would truly make me throw the Fuji against the wall.

I'll try that test on a sunny day. At this moment it's grey and raining in Vancouver.

4th grey patch? which one?

I truly was not pleased with Sony colour science but it seemed that when I did a colour profiled based on shooting xrite passport in open shade.......The colours really changed to a more easier colour "science" in post.

AlanU wrote in post #18693151
If I did not use my xrite passport profile on this McLaren the red would have looked more like blood red. This image actually has an accurate render of what the paint actually looked like. The red carpet colour is quite accurate too.

If I played with no colour profile from my xrite the Sony Colour science is quite aggressive in the reds even more than Canon.

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=186​93151&i=i6965563
forum: Changing Camera Brands

All that's fine as long as you assume the screen someone is looking at the image on is correctly balanced, if not then the colours might be all over the place. Great for printing though.

The row of grayscale patches, seen at the very bottom of Photo 1, 4th patch (of six).

BTW, the iPhone seems to render colors quite 'electric', compared to my 7DII...neutral and then with induced color shifts

Adapted lenses: It's doable, and some lenses will work better than others. The general consensus is that native is much better, and a lot of people are saying the Sigma MC-11 is better than the MB in terms of reliability with most lenses (not just Sigma)

EVF: haven't used the A7III other than 5 mins in store under crap lighting...so I don't think I can make an informed assessment on it, BUT I do have the A7RIII. The EVF is adequate, but it's still not perfect. Some people love it, some people are like me and not 100% a fan. Don't see many that hate it though. From what I understand the 7III is slightly worse, so I'd probably check both out in person before buying.

ISO: I've never shot a 6D, so can't do a direct comparison. Have shot a Nikon D610 (the direct competitor) and a 5DII and III. The A7RIII is as good as if not better than them all. Some say ISO 12800 is good, I personally cap it at 6400...then again I'd cap the 5DIII at 3200 and the D610/D800e at 5000 max. I don't think you'll have an issue with the R. Supposedly the 7III is 1/2-2/3 stop cleaner. Depends on how you shoot and how often you're up in the high ISO's.

Skin tones: I've been a fan of Canon for the last 15 years. Have shot Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic. Canon was my favorite until recently. The newest gen Sony's are more appealing to me, but not by much. It's also the glass though, good contrast with some of the lenses helps. Even if you still prefer Canon, it's like 15 minutes in post to "correct" it.

I'm telling all Canon shooters, esp. those invested in lots of good glass to just wait a month or two for Canon's mirrorless announcement. Seems like everyone is going the Sony route with a lower end 24mp model and a high mp model of 40+ mp. I'm sure Canon will offer both, likely one with the 6DII sensor and one with the 5DS sensor.

I'm a Canon shooter for so many years. I will not hold my breathe for the FF mirrorless. I can see Canon throwing in a 6dmk2 and 5dmk4 sensor and not the high res 5dsR sensor.

"IF" Canon does some freakishly amazing debut of a worthy mirrorless FF I'll buy it.

As for the Z Nikon mirrorless my local shop told me there is a huge list of Z6 pre orders and very little Z7....go figure.....

Sony is "different" and this is why I will still continue to shoot Canon and Sony. The Canon "cartoon" look at small apertures is sometimes nice but sometimes I dislike it. Now that i've been using Sony I am really seeing a difference that I appreciate.

Personal preference will vary ...... as usual when it comes to gear acquisition.

Hey Alan, tdlavigne and Mystik,


I wanna thank you all for the really thoughtful replies—stuff like this is what I need to hear before I drop the cash!

I don’t tend to do weddings or things that demand anything other than single-shot AF. The ol' 6D hasn't been out of One Shot AF in years.
The Sony Eye-AF, and AF-S modes seem most appealing so far.

Mystik, I did take that color test on DPReview and we’re not talking about my results! XD
I will say though that I didn’t feel any of the shots were “worlds different” or beyond help. I felt like each camera could be worked with.

Regarding color science, I’m only partially concerned because I’ve shot some with an XT-1, XT-2, and an IR-modded X-M1. They’re pretty different from Canon but honestly I found the new process and different looking files pretty refreshing in a way.
I certainly don’t expect to nail it the first time or just pick it up on the first day, but I guess what I’m hoping is that it’s workable, and if it is, I’m willing to work with it.

It’s good to know that the A7 series isn’t so hot with Canon glass in less than optimal lighting…because the biggie for me is glass. I’m content with my glass and I’m not sure it’s replaceable without selling everything and downsizing.

Honestly I’m kinda irked to be in this spot with a "almost totaled" camera needing a replacement.
There's enough cash only to do this ONCE so I can’t afford to really get this wrong.… and Canon doesn’t have a lot of bodies that real appeal to me at their respective price points. The 5D4 is out of my range, the 5D3 is an expensive side step and the 6D2 is an expensive downgrade.
I have little faith in the upcoming mirrorless release based on their last 3-4 bodies.My crystal ball suggests it will feel like an A7iii knockoff with the same price tag for less features, and it might have issues.


I may just have to rent an A7iii and try it out, but at least I am getting some good and balanced feedback from yall—and that I do appreciate! It helps strip away the hype and marketing wank.

rogue.guineapig wrote in post #18694424
Hey Alan, tdlavigne and Mystik,


I wanna thank you all for the really thoughtful replies—stuff like this is what I need to hear before I drop the cash!

I don’t tend to do weddings or things that demand anything other than single-shot AF. The ol' 6D hasn't been out of One Shot AF in years.
The Sony Eye-AF, and AF-S modes seem most appealing so far.

Mystik, I did take that color test on DPReview and we’re not talking about my results! XD
I will say though that I didn’t feel any of the shots were “worlds different” or beyond help. I felt like each camera could be worked with.

Regarding color science, I’m only partially concerned because I’ve shot some with an XT-1, XT-2, and an IR-modded X-M1. They’re pretty different from Canon but honestly I found the new process and different looking files pretty refreshing in a way.
I certainly don’t expect to nail it the first time or just pick it up on the first day, but I guess what I’m hoping is that it’s workable, and if it is, I’m willing to work with it.

It’s good to know that the A7 series isn’t so hot with Canon glass in less than optimal lighting…because the biggie for me is glass. I’m content with my glass and I’m not sure it’s replaceable without selling everything and downsizing.

Honestly I’m kinda irked to be in this spot with a "almost totaled" camera needing a replacement.
There's enough cash only to do this ONCE so I can’t afford to really get this wrong.… and Canon doesn’t have a lot of bodies that real appeal to me at their respective price points. The 5D4 is out of my range, the 5D3 is an expensive side step and the 6D2 is an expensive downgrade.
I have little faith in the upcoming mirrorless release based on their last 3-4 bodies.My crystal ball suggests it will feel like an A7iii knockoff with the same price tag for less features, and it might have issues.


I may just have to rent an A7iii and try it out, but at least I am getting some good and balanced feedback from yall—and that I do appreciate! It helps strip away the hype and marketing wank.

Yeah there are some that stuck with mostly adapted glass...mostly landscapers though.

Eventually most people who pick up a Sony end up with Sony glass....not totally because the AF is sub-optimal though. The native glass is actually very good. But transitioning is expensive. The upside to adapting is that it smoothes that transition out. I think it took me two years to fully transition. I still have a lone EF lens, so I'm technically not 100% Sony. Once they release a native 135, I'll consider swapping over, but this Sigma is really nice!