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

their 24-70 is supposed to be legendary but (used) the price difference is like $600 from a Canon 24-70 L II.
Has your 24-70 been quick enough? What adapter do you use with it?
The new 135 crop looks pretty cool, I have to admit.

rogue.guineapig wrote in post #18694438
their 24-70 is supposed to be legendary but (used) the price difference is like $600 from a Canon 24-70 L II.
Has your 24-70 been quick enough? What adapter do you use with it?
The new 135 crop looks pretty cool, I have to admit.

So I had the 24-70GM, but actually sold it because the Canon 24-70II that I had for years is a lens that works particularly well on Sony bodies. Still not perfect, but very good in most cases. Worked well with both the metabones and Sigma MC-11. I actually sold the Canon 24-70II eventually to fund other stuff though.

Tamron released an optically very good, and compact (for a f2.8 zoom) 28-75 f2.8. Much more affordable too at $800. It's on my short list:

https://petapixel.com …or-sony-fe-is-a-home-run/

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.

Hey are you looking at the same crystal ball that I'm looking in lol!!!!

I still feel my canon is still a great system. It all depends on what your after.

The sony with native glass has fast actuation with native glass. I still do feel the mirrored bodies just do it faster. To me this matters since I'm just being demanding and not willing to give up this instant gratification. However if your not being silly picky you'll feel the shutter button "fast enough" for you with the A7iii.

I'm sooooooo particular and I just have a canon kit that can shoot anything I throw at it. Fuji can work perfect for some so that is cool. I just cannot fully use Fuji as a primary. Jumping into Sony is painful as just getting simple "trinity" f/2.8 Gmaster will cost 9 grand CDN without talking about tax. I already have more than enough in the Canon world but I cannot let it go.

I truly suspect Canon FF mirrorless to be "ok" but not in the same league as the A7iii. Maybe canon will be on par in mark2 or 3 version.

I'll admit Sony was sooooooo hard to deal with initially. However after using mc11 with 24Lmk2 I'd take that combo anyday compared to my very loved Fuji X-t2 with 16mm f/1.4. Now that I bought a 24mm sigma art that sony a7iii is my goto 24mm combo.

test and test and be open minded. A7iii will be slower in AF with Canon glass but oddly it's still faster than my Fuji with native glass in many cases.

I landed more photos with my A7iii with canon 70-200 than my Fuji with 50-140mm. Maybe it was just bad luck or bad opportunities with my Fuji. Mind you during a bird show this photo wasn't easy at such close proximity with Sony.

If you get the shots your after ....that's all that counts.

mystik610 wrote in post #18692922
The boom of DSLR's happened when affordable entry level models started hitting the market in the early/mid 2000's. As smartphone cameras improved in quality, casual shooters started preferring them over DSLR's....that's where the decline in DSLR sales is happening.

Prosumer ILC's seems to be selling well though...i.e. D850 sold out for a while...as were the a7riii and a7iii. It's just that the entry level market for ILC's was so massive in terms of sales volume that it took a significant toll on the market as a whole. It's distorting things in the short-term, but we should see a stabilization point sometime in the next year or so because the prosumer base will always be there.

Sony has had a very narrow focus on high value mirrorless cameras for the past 4 years or so and they have less exposure to the smartphone boom... they've been growing healthily year over year so you can see where the opportunity is. This is why canon and nikon are scrambling to get their FF mirrorless cameras out the door

/\ epic Alan!

If that is the case.... you may want to wait for the Canon variant, or consider adding budget for some Sony glass. After shooting 30 plus years, I've seen just about everything, so the "challenge" is fun for me for my personal stuff. I don't take any chances with my paid work though - and there are only 3 lenses in my bad that I consider 100% safe - 400L 2.8, 300L 2.8 and 85 f1.8 .... and 80% trust the 24-105L (used mostly for video). The rest.... I use them, but I bake into my shooting a little extra time and patience for the adapted lenses.

Most of the time they don't work right it's because I haven't set the camera up right... there are specific settings adapted lenses work better at. Zone versus spot focus... etc.

If you don't like the "challenge" - wait it out until Canon ships theirs.

Please note Sony looks "for real!!" no canvas look or painterly cartoon look you can get with fuji or Canon. You can literally try to make Sony look cartoon but it's not a file that looks that way.

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.

It sounds like it could be an upgrade for you, I too used single point af (about a 50/50 mix of AF-S and AF-C) and I found the eye-AF to really be the biggest feature for me. Even with fast glass my keeper rate is probably close to 95% if not more, and that's compared to my usual keepers of around 75-80%. It does kinda feel like cheating though.

I would still wait though if I were you, at least until the announcement...just because you've got some really nice Canon glass. If you had a kit lens and a 50mm 1.8 I'd suggest just go for the Sony, but with the lenses you have even if they worked 90% as well on a Sony body as they would natively with Canon, you're still not extracting the most potential out of them. Eventually you'll either hate the Sony experience and sell at a loss (I see A LOT of people like this), or you'll end up selling the Canon glass and replace with Sony (at roughly 1.5x the price new), or you'll just stick with it and deal with it (but you'll probably realize you aren't getting the best out of your setup).

I think adapting lenses is a short term solution, especially if you're buying a high end body. I don't think Canon will botch the FF mirrorless launch like Nikon either, since they're usually more keen on what the bare minimum expectations are even if they do hold back some features.

And here's a monkey wrench for you: Assuming your price range is in between $2000 and $2400 (new A7III vs used A7RIII); you could always try a used A7RII (avg of $1500) and another 6D (avg of $700) and enjoy the best of both worlds: Eye AF and the extra DR and resolution with the Sony at a lesser investment, and the familiarity and benefits of using the lenses with the native mount on the 6D.

Dude... you absolutely live in God's country.... miss getting up there on a regular basis.

AlanU wrote in post #18694454
I truly suspect Canon FF mirrorless to be "ok" but not in the same league as the A7iii. Maybe canon will be on par in mark2 or 3 version.

First of all, great shots you just posted! Second, it all depends how Canon plays it. Many believe they are not going to try to beat the a7iii but put out a camera thats got 90%-95% of the features but around the $1200-$1500 price point. If they go that route, they will have a massive hit on their hands. Especially if its an EF mount, which more and more people are thinking is likely. If they try to match the a7iii and price it around the same price or slightly higher, it better be REALLY good. But again, give it an EF mount and Canon users wanting a mirrorless will flock to it. I will be watching for the higher end model more closely.

I see next to no reason the new Canon can't have an EF mount on it. If the EF mounts work on Sony's mirrorless, I see no reason Canon can't get their own lenses to work with their new bodies. Nikon HAD to redo their mount, it was a long time coming. The diameter was so small it was really holding them back design wise. So I am sure they jumped on this as a reason to dump the old mount. Canon doesn't have that issue.

Again, if I were a Canon only shooter right now... I would wait. Not much to loose by waiting if what Canon announces won't work. Mirrorless does not require a new mount. Has nothing to do with it. It's just that historically mirrorless (Olympus and Pentax) were designed to be small... so a new 4/3 mount required. Canon doesn't have that requirement. Will be fun to see what they come up with.

tdlavigne, I think the A7iii is a strong upgrade...
and unfortunately, I don't feel that way about any of what Canon has at the moment. Canon bodies are an "upgrade" in a sense, but the dollars-to-features-and-performance ratio is not a good one.


Alan those are some EPIC shots! It's obvious the gear is only supporting the mind behind the camera!

Regarding the Canon FF.... (which is supposedly the "EOS R")...
The official rumor mill suggests:
a 24-28MP rig (which is fine--much more than that and SD cards and HDDs start feeling awfully small).

Dual pixel AF (on par with existing bodies).

IBIS (on par with every other brand now).

The video options all look similar to what every other brand is offering too.

IF the price in the 12-15 range I'd agree with Mbell that it's a good move. It's not "equal" to an A7iii but then it's 25% cheaper so, hey, ya make some compromises for a few bucks.

However: rumors are that it won't be that cheap and Canon Rumors today reiterated the possibility for a new mount.
If either of those are true, then it's likely the camera won't "suck" but that it will be lesser than other companies' products at for at least an equal price.
That could be the case in any sense... it could just end up being kind of a low-average performer, and that's hard to want to spend average (or more) cash on.

I won't buy anything before the announcement (next week probably?) ...and I'd agree that they probably won't bungle it as much as Nikon but I'm not hopeful that they
will exceed the current market offerings in either exceptional price or in features.

It seems like there's a tipping point for some where they're willing to let go of some cash and their stock of Canon glass and make the jump...sounds like it's different for everyone though.

Regarding color..

I started with canon , then went to others including sony, fuji, panasonic ( and even some good old film)
All the while thinking back on how i missed the good old canon colors.

Januarary i had a 5d4 for about a month. .. its then that i realized i only missed it because it's what i was comfortable with.. i also realized that for my taste canon goes a bit heavy with reds on skin tones,
Like in my opinion my sony a7r3 goes in a bit heavy with the oranges.. again , for my taste.
My gh5 can do some funky things with skin tones as well.

For myself i learned that proper wb is key and better post skills..
I dont see the sony issue anymore, i dont miss canon colors anymore.
For the most part i can get the colors i want out any of my cameras (sony, fuji, pana or canon)

Im speaking strictly in terms of raw files

Actually i had a portrait session a couple of days ago, natural lighting(window)
Shot mostly with the 7r3 with a 35l mkii and an 85 gm.
I also took a fuji xt2 and shot a few frames with the 35L.. absolutely the same in terms of color

rantercsr wrote in post #18696045
Actually i had a portrait session a couple of days ago, natural lighting(window)
Shot mostly with the 7r3 with a 35l mkii and an 85 gm.
I also took a fuji xt2 and shot a few frames with the 35L.. absolutely the same in terms of color

Lets see some shots straight off the cameras

Mbell1975 wrote in post #18696050
Lets see some shots straight off the cameras

Im at work now but i can post later tonight.

Although if its to compare colors , my claim isnt that they look the same straight out of camera., thats why i said i was speaking strictly in raw files