Upgrade from Canon 5D Mark IV to A7R IV ?

If it will become necessary to switch to new rf glass on canons mirrorless bodies then any upgrade should be viewed as buying into a new system. Im not sure if selling off your ef lenses to buy rf will be a requirement but i will assume that ef lenses will continue to drop in price and sooner rather than later be removed from canons production lineup. That along with marketing and canon saying that rf lenses will perform better than ef lenses on a canon mirrorless i just dont see much of a choice but to buy all new glass.

AsifSalam wrote in post #18931347
Thanks guys for the interesting views and and discussion. Its all positive and while asking the questions just heard Canon releasing the new Eye AF in EOS R line which seems a major progress on Canon side.

I love the Canon body, screen and menu system etc. where as we all know Sony did not improve those much :S

https://www.youtube.co​m …continue=38&v=u​uQiqd-a32g

What you take on the this new firmware upgrade on Canon side ?

I think the AF was plenty good before. Now there's just more. More than I need, but no complaints if I can get even more on a free download.

Ever see this guy's presentation before the firmware update?

elitejp wrote in post #18931840
If it will become necessary to switch to new rf glass on canons mirrorless bodies then any upgrade should be viewed as buying into a new system. Im not sure if selling off your ef lenses to buy rf will be a requirement but i will assume that ef lenses will continue to drop in price and sooner rather than later be removed from canons production lineup. That along with marketing and canon saying that rf lenses will perform better than ef lenses on a canon mirrorless i just dont see much of a choice but to buy all new glass.

There is no need to buy new glass, other than if you are planning to, or whenever you want to replace your current glass, either with different lenses, or with newer ones.

As to the EF lenses: if anything, AF, when mounted with an original Canon EF to RF adapter, is better on an EOS R than on Canon's dslrs. It just nails focus. I get a hit rate of approximately 99%, and that 1 % is caused by user error, (like accidentally pressing the shutter butoon while holding the camera down, etc.). Previously it was around 60% ....

And the new glass is distinctly better than anything Canon produced in EF as a similar (or equal type lens), up till now anyway. I always loved the 50L and 85L, but their replacements are truly out of this world. Similarly, the 24-105L actually is a darn good lens, unlike its EF predecessors (and I had both of those).

To be very honest, if you do want to switch, I will be the last one to stop you, just go ahead. However, if you do like the way Canon cameras and lenses work, you may get disappointed eventually. As to the 7RiV, Canon will very likley announce an 80 MP EOS R series replacement for the 5Ds and 5DSr early in december (if not sooner). I'd suggest you wait till that time .

HTH, kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #18934948
There is no need to buy new glass, other than if you are planning to, or whenever you want to replace your current glass, either with different lenses, or with newer ones.

As to the EF lenses: if anything, AF, when mounted with an original Canon EF to RF adapter, is better on an EOS R than on Canon's dslrs. It just nails focus. I get a hit rate of approximately 99%, and that 1 % is caused by user error, (like accidentally pressing the shutter butoon while holding the camera down, etc.). Previously it was around 60% ....

And the new glass is distinctly better than anything Canon produced in EF as a similar (or equal type lens), up till now anyway. I always loved the 50L and 85L, but their replacements are truly out of this world. Similarly, the 24-105L actually is a darn good lens, unlike its EF predecessors (and I had both of those).

To be very honest, if you do want to switch, I will be the last one to stop you, just go ahead. However, if you do like the way Canon cameras and lenses work, you may get disappointed eventually. As to the 7RiV, Canon will very likley announce an 80 MP EOS R series replacement for the 5Ds and 5DSr early in december (if not sooner). I'd suggest you wait till that time .

HTH, kind regards, Wim

If you try testing the new sony 24-105 f/4 it's an incredible lens. I feel it has similar qualities to my Canon 24-70L f/2.8mk2 but 1 stop slower.

I will have to say you will find the 5dmk4 absolutely 99.99% rock solid in low light environments using oneshot mode. Mirrorless still is not rock solid in AF using "one shot" when bouncing flash with red focus assist.

I'm much deeper in Sony now and shooting events I am finding I'm not missing my Canon that much. I think my 5dmk4 is still instant in acquiring AF during events documentation. Just last night I went to my 30 year grad reunion with my pair of A73 and Gmaster 16-35 f/2.8 and Sigma 35 f/1.2 and it did a killer job but my Canon mirrorless seems like it lands af much faster in the pitch black bar environment.

The only reason a person may admire the A7r4 is the great need to crop or requiring high megapixels. The fast AF algorithm is just the bonus deal !!

When Canon produces a 30-40mp full frame mirrorless with dual cards I'll start ramping up on new gen canon gear. At this moment I will not consider any Canon products and RF glass is useless to me without a current body that I wish had dual cards

The mirrorless world is here but canon at this moment in Sept 2019 just misses the mark in killer featured mirrorless FF bodies.

Just looking back at my old Canon 5d classic files....those digital style images from Canon are long dead. All new sensor tech produces piercing digital looking images and that analog 5dc look is gone forever. No more analog transition in edges. So IMO all new gen glass with nano coatings is the way of the digital looking future. The old big pig 85Lmk2 still has this slight render of old school looking digital files that is less digital looking. All we see online is modern adaptation to razor sharp digital looking images.

So in otherwords whatever brand you shoot they all look the same to an extent on your iphone or desktop. Even though I no longer care to shoot Fuji I will admit the cooked digital flavour Fuji puts in their raw files has a digital but "film" look that Nikon, Canon and Sony does NOT have unless you do serious crafty post processing.

I had struggles shooting Sony but now it's been shockingly excellent to me now. As a Canon shooter this took time to adapt the Sony look/render.

Mirrored bodies is a system and simply that. Mirrorless is also a different system. Having both may be the best thing for both worlds.

I would suggest testing the Sony world and give it time to adapt. Sony, Canon or Nikon your wallet will take a severe hit on all of the new gen mirrorless pro glass. At this moment diving in any FF mirrorless is not a cheap adventure.

Since you are already using the 5D Mark IV which is an excellent professional camera, I assume you will be super-familiar with the Canon UI and will have a nice collection of lenses. Why shift to another brand when you can just go for the EOS 1DX.

nationalstore wrote in post #18937486
Since you are already using the 5D Mark IV which is an excellent professional camera, I assume you will be super-familiar with the Canon UI and will have a nice collection of lenses. Why shift to another brand when you can just go for the EOS 1DX.

The UI is about all that would be the same. There is a significant resolution difference between a 5D Mark IV (which i have) and a Sony A7R IV vs. a 1DX. Not that the 1DX isn't a great body, but it isn't the same kind of body.

I've asked myself this very question a lot over the past year or so. Without going into all the details of that though process I'm still shooting a 5D IV and will continue to do so for the time being.

nationalstore wrote in post #18937486
Since you are already using the 5D Mark IV which is an excellent professional camera, I assume you will be super-familiar with the Canon UI and will have a nice collection of lenses. Why shift to another brand when you can just go for the EOS 1DX.

The thing about camera bodies is that if your a die hard mirrored body owner it's a leap of faith in some cases to go full mirrorless. I'm deeper into Sony now but oddly I still cannot dump my 5dmk3/4 for some events work. On the other hand if your a landscape buy you can really adapt anything and even use manual focus all day long with no worries.

If I was a landscape shooter and used Canon 5dmk4 …..I'd buy a Sony A7r3 or r4, adapt the Canon glass and get real to life images. Fast action using no artificial lights or bounce flash I'd easily go mirrorless with no hesitation. My only issue with mirrorless is that when I bounce flash my Canon 5dmk3/4 has zero hesitation when I press the shutter button. My Sony still feels like there's some propagation delay as I press the shutter.

Pros/cons to everything. For wildlife and landscape I prefer the real to life images Sony provides. Canon definitely has a different spin on how it renders life vs Nikon, Sony. Fuji has a real cooked image very tweaked in camera due to Fuji's adaptation in digital film look even in RAW form.

AlanU wrote in post #18937603
Canon definitely has a different spin on how it renders life vs Nikon, Sony. Fuji has a real cooked image very tweaked in camera due to Fuji's adaptation in digital film look even in RAW form.

Of course if you shoot raw your statement if utter nonsense. For JPEGs Fuji do have their own look alright & you can set up those as you like or just shoot raw and have whatever you want out of the colours later. Just like any camera.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18937925
Of course if you shoot raw your statement if utter nonsense. For JPEGs Fuji do have their own look alright & you can set up those as you like or just shoot raw and have whatever you want out of the colours later. Just like any camera.

Compare some Fuji landscape with Sony FF. The look Fuji provides is definitely different compared to Sony landscape. I'm not certain if I even mentioned colour. The Fuji RAW file definitely looks cooked with softer transition and film look in many cases. Head over to Fred Miranda and you'd hear comments of fuji smudge for landscape foliage with lack of detail vs Sony FF.

There's a noticeable different look between Canon and Sony output for wildlife and landscape. Fuji look is also different which is also probably due to the X-trans sensor and Adobe lightroom software. The zinger is I will not use Capture 1 because I am forced too as a LR user. I have zero issues using my Canon and Sony FF with Lightroom.

Eventually I'll venture to EOS R (mk2,3 etc) and get Canon flavour files.......

AlanU wrote in post #18938064
Compare some Fuji landscape with Sony FF. The look Fuji provides is definitely different compared to Sony landscape. I'm not certain if I even mentioned colour. The Fuji RAW file definitely looks cooked with softer transition and film look in many cases. Head over to Fred Miranda and you'd hear comments of fuji smudge for landscape foliage with lack of detail vs Sony FF.

There's a noticeable different look between Canon and Sony output for wildlife and landscape. Fuji look is also different which is also probably due to the X-trans sensor and Adobe lightroom software. The zinger is I will not use Capture 1 because I am forced too as a LR user. I have zero issues using my Canon and Sony FF with Lightroom.

Eventually I'll venture to EOS R (mk2,3 etc) and get Canon flavour files.......

That is ultimately what drove me away from Fuji. Loved the way the images looked, until you start working with them in Lr. Particularly sharpening. I found it very difficult and rarely came up with results I was truly happy with. Good results? yes... what I wanted exactly? No.

Converting files through Xtransformer helps tremendously with that, but now you have a different (and potentially lengthy) additional step in the process. Loved the way Fuji bodies handled, lenses are great, but for me working with the raw files killed it. Of course that very well could be different with GFX files.

AlanU wrote in post #18938064
Compare some Fuji landscape with Sony FF. The look Fuji provides is definitely different compared to Sony landscape. I'm not certain if I even mentioned colour. The Fuji RAW file definitely looks cooked with softer transition and film look in many cases. Head over to Fred Miranda and you'd hear comments of fuji smudge for landscape foliage with lack of detail vs Sony FF.

There's a noticeable different look between Canon and Sony output for wildlife and landscape. Fuji look is also different which is also probably due to the X-trans sensor and Adobe lightroom software. The zinger is I will not use Capture 1 because I am forced too as a LR user. I have zero issues using my Canon and Sony FF with Lightroom.

Eventually I'll venture to EOS R (mk2,3 etc) and get Canon flavour files.......

Ah, the road well walked, I know we have discussed this topic many times and I know you know I'm a Capture One fan, it is the best IMO ( and free for Fuji shooters & Sony shooters too ). Adobe have very much improved their handling of X-Trans files over the last few updates or so I read as I don't use the up to date model so I'll refrain from posting other peoples opinion as my own. But anyway, don't need to read out of date posts on FM to know what's up. I own a Sony and a Fuji so can see for myself, It's an older Sony so a bit like your 'information' out of date with the recent improvements but I can make it work. And that's the thing, stigmas are easily attached, then some people constantly push them out as fact. If you didn't understand how to get the most out of a file or not what you wanted and have moved on great, good choice, but do we really need to keep reading the same rhetoric over and over again? Really?
Also in a post about a Canon and Sony camera you choose to make a dig at Fuji ( quelle surprise ) - Time to heal Alan, Time to heal


Anyway, I'm in total disagreement with Alan on this, whatever camera you use if you are shooting raw then you have loads of info to play with and its up to you to get the look you want. In the past I would have said you'd need to consider what you shoot before moving away from the brand you have used for years and probably have an array of lenses for but in the past year or two even Sony have upped their lens game to offer a good coverage. I'm a mirrorless shooter and would never go back to a DSLR there are to many advantages to be had with a good mirrorless that well out weigh the cons, cons that are getting less and less as the years go on. I shoot a few events through the year and don't have any problem I'm the dark with focus with I'm using my mirrorless these days (with the Fuji). You don't really need a DSLR these days for the darker rooms, and every year things gets better [did I sat that already]. There is a lot to be said that if you have the latest bit of kit from any brand of camera that it's surly a very capable machine, if you are wishing for your grass to be as green then perhaps you are focusing on the wrong thing.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18938157
Ah, the road well walked, I know we have discussed this topic many times and I know you know I'm a Capture One fan, it is the best IMO ( and free for Fuji shooters & Sony shooters too ). Adobe have very much improved their handling of X-Trans files over the last few updates or so I read as I don't use the up to date model so I'll refrain from posting other peoples opinion as my own. But anyway, don't need to read out of date posts on FM to know what's up. I own a Sony and a Fuji so can see for myself, It's an older Sony so a bit like your 'information' out of date with the recent improvements but I can make it work. And that's the thing, stigmas are easily attached, then some people constantly push them out as fact. If you didn't understand how to get the most out of a file or not what you wanted and have moved on great, good choice, but do we really need to keep reading the same rhetoric over and over again? Really?
Also in a post about a Canon and Sony camera you choose to make a dig at Fuji ( quelle surprise ) - Time to heal Alan, Time to heal

Anyway, I'm in total disagreement with Alan on this, whatever camera you use if you are shooting raw then you have loads of info to play with and its up to you to get the look you want. In the past I would have said you'd need to consider what you shoot before moving away from the brand you have used for years and probably have an array of lenses for but in the past year or two even Sony have upped their lens game to offer a good coverage. I'm a mirrorless shooter and would never go back to a DSLR there are to many advantages to be had with a good mirrorless that well out weigh the cons, cons that are getting less and less as the years go on. I shoot a few events through the year and don't have any problem I'm the dark with focus with I'm using my mirrorless these days (with the Fuji). You don't really need a DSLR these days for the darker rooms, and every year things gets better [did I sat that already]. There is a lot to be said that if you have the latest bit of kit from any brand of camera that it's surly a very capable machine, if you are wishing for your grass to be as green then perhaps you are focusing on the wrong thing.

Kim, I no longer "dig" Fuji (play on words). Due to the limitations of the Xtrans Sony aps-c sensor I couldn't get the most out of my files based on hardware. Simply, my 5dmk4 and A73 currently perform stellar in comparison and this is factual. I have less tolerance to noise and I make no excuses for noisy files.

If the OP has the processing power and digital storage for such 61MP Sony A7r4 files I think this would be a nice "black box". The new camera would be quite a versatile camera. Not ideal but even resorting to super 35 mode (crop mode) and getting 26MP files is an alternative). Lens support with a huge lineup is quite remarkable now.

The RAW files from Canon and Sony manipulate totally different. It's a change that is quite a learning curve. What should be noted is a Canon shooters brain is use to a certain "look" and it is not an easy journey to try to get a Sony file to look identical to a Canon.

OP.....just buy an A7r4 and tell us the results in a month or two. You are heading into a steep learning curve in post processing if you're trying to replicate the look of Canon.

I've said it before though... if Fuji produced a Full frame body I'd buy into it as deep as my Canon and Sony gear I own. Aps-c just doesn't work for me due to physical limitations of the sensor size and less high iso performance compared to the gear I currently own. The way Fuji aps-c Raw file looks even when using the "Adobe Color" profile still has this film look render. This is a combo of Fuji body/lens and Fuji Raw characteristics in LR and from what I've seen even Capture 1. The niche, bulky GFX needs to get faster glass and similar equivalent zooms and even primes to the FF world. In a short duration of time Canon and Nikon will catch up so this will be interesting time for the photography world.

If the OP is patient …...he should wait to see what the EOS R mk2 has to offer....

I guess I don’t see the same limits as you with the gear when I’m out working. Fuji not working on a full frame system they have a much bigger 44x33 sensor, so between that and the x-trans bodies all is covered as far as they are concerned.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18938345



I guess I don’t see the same limits as you with the gear when I’m out working. Fuji not working on a full frame system they have a much bigger 44x33 sensor, so between that and the x-trans bodies all is covered as far as they are concerned.

Kim, there are limitation to every gear. I found some images intolerable with a Fuji 16mm f/1.4 and 56 f/1.2 due to the limitations of sensor performance even with "best Fuji has to offer" fast glass. I know a lot of photogs that never ever admit deficiencies and ever disclose their personal comments in their gear limitations publicly when they see noise. This is especially so to their clients as they must uphold reputation. It's a matter of acknowledging sensor limitation and rolling with it even if its noisy Every photog has different standards. What's the saying? "camera in hand is better than none" ?? An image is better than no image in many cases.

This is merely speaking of hardware. Strategic artificial light will make any sensor shine with good IQ. Point of discussion is based on limitations pushing sensor performance especially in available light. In this thread I've mentioned SONY camera brand "render" to be vastly different in how they manipulate in post and benefits of low light performance.

There is a fine balance of aperture/speed of glass and dof obtained as a result of sensor size. FF has a certain level of a sweet spot in events photography, sports and portraits. Reasonable shallow dof with subject separation using an f/2.8 zoom with excellent noise control. Slower glass on Fuji large format can push the sensor harder in low light and potentially being thinner in dof when not desired. I've had this discussion with a friend that uses GFX50S about differences of slower GFX glass while trying to obtain same dof compared to his FF using faster apertures. Interesting balancing act.

GFX50S for fast paced photography is not ideal due to extremely limiting AF speed and few will spend such money on a bulky GFX100 for eveants photography. If Fuji provided us with a Full frame this is more of a universal application body that surpasses their aps-c sensor performance.

Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless is evolving as we speak with new lens lineups. Sony is currently in abundance of lenses to cover all grounds in any application from high speed sports to portraits with technically better high iso than the sony sensor inside Fuji aps-c bodies.

Is still think the OP should wait to see what Canon has to offer in the EOS R mk2,3 etc. Jumping to Sony mirrorless may possibly be an upgrade in many cases rather than being a lateral move.

I will openly admit I've incorrectly chosen too fast of a shutter speed. These particular images in this fast paced environment bouncing in between the track cars and pit/parking area I should have changed the settings. Using Fuji even with slower shutter speeds Fuji RAW falls apart much quicker. If I used my 5dmk4 it would have kept up in clean files, almost on par with my A73. This is where even these images are just acceptable to me in the pitch darkness environment even when the settings were not ideal. I've yet to see a perfect human/photog as they would simply never disclosed errors My X-t2 would have worked adequately with slower shutter speeds and potentially adding unacceptable motion blur.

Curious what the op decides.....

Photo from AlanU's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (998231)

Photo from AlanU's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (998230)

AlanU wrote in post #18938432
Curious what the op decides.....

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by AlanU originally in forum: Sony Digital Cameras

Looks like a cool event. I used to have a ghia, until my sister's boy friend borrowed it years ago, and rear ended another car. Car still ran fine, but had a huge dent in its nose. I didn't have the time nor skills to fix it so let it go to someone who could make her whole again. The car was fun to drive and had a bit of counter culture funk to it.

Looks like a cool event to shoot...

To your other comments.... what sold me on Sony was when I started playing in lightroom, and was playing with shadows, and was blown away at the latitude of the files. Allows for a lot of latitude in shooting.

Me personally though, the Canon is a great camera, and Im not sure if there weren't super strong reasons I would change to the Dark side of Sony. If you have Canon gear, know the system, just wait it out. Eventually Canon will get it right.