Ok I ended up selling my 5div and 85. Went to buy the A7rIII and bought a 85GM
Got to the store and decided to just look at the R. Well it just simply felt better. The viewfinder and lcd kills Sony. And to be honest photos seemed sharper. Hoping I don’t regret it but I ended up with the R... so now I need to sell a new 85GM lol
white wrote:
Well I know Canon sensors very well, I have had lots of them. And now I know first hand what the Sony sensors will. I do not need to hold the R to be disappointed with a warmed over 2 year old sensor that was behind the times when it first came out. There have also been plenty enough real world reviews to get a feel for the less than stellar AF system on the R.
Trust me, I wanted Canon to hit one out of the park as it could have saved me a lot of money changing systems. I ran out of patience with Canon after all these years.
I liked how Canon cameras felt in hand to date, but if the sensor sucks it is all for not anyway. I do find that I also like how the Sony feels in hand and the responsiveness of the AF system.
I was in denial for years, perhaps you still are....Show more →
I would be happy with the EOS R sensor, because it is in the same family as the 5D4, and the 5D4 is just a joy to work with. Strange that you find the Canon sensors so lacking, when it does everything I throw at it, even at ISO levels some might find high. DR is quite good too. Sony is just a tad ahead in DR, but at high ISO, these are pretty close.
I am happy in my ignorance and choose to stay that way. As long as my Canon gear gives me this, I am quite happy. However the EOSR isn't for me. The pro version will be, so I sit and wait!
I'm new to Canon forum but I have been in Sony forum for a while.
I keep thinking about EOS R and 24-105 package. Is there anyone moving from A7R3 and are you happy? I like Sony RAW files but I hope I can shoot JPEGs more with Canon.
Currently I'm having Sony A7R3 with new GM 24 1.4, Sony 85mm 1.4 and Zeiss 55mm 1.8. What are equivalent Canon lenses, in both price range and image quality?
I need your honest inputs please.
"TeamSpeed", stay happy and avoid trying a Sony sensor.
Actually ones experience will vary depending on what you shoot and how you image process. Extreme noise at high ISO masks banding for instance. It shows more at low ISO and particularly with say landscape work where one is more inclined to open the shadows more extremely. But even in portraiture at moderate ISO Canon banding will creep in if you try to open the dark tones too much.
It is surprising how much more malleable the Sony RAW files are to work on.
When my wife saw a side by side comparison, she said the Canon files looked like they had a linen cloth pattern superimposed over them. She then told me to switch systems
white wrote:
"TeamSpeed", stay happy and avoid trying a Sony sensor.
Actually ones experience will vary depending on what you shoot and how you image process. Extreme noise at high ISO masks banding for instance. It shows more at low ISO and particularly with say landscape work where one is more inclined to open the shadows more extremely. But even in portraiture at moderate ISO Canon banding will creep in if you try to open the dark tones too much.
It is surprising how much more malleable the Sony RAW files are to work on.
When my wife saw a side by side comparison, she said the Canon files looked like they had a linen cloth pattern superimposed over them. She then told me to switch systems...Show more →
A few things.
You can't generalize Canon sensors. They are as different internally as to other brands. My 5D II could show the linen pattern even after moderate push. My 5DSR never does. The 5D IV sensor is a new generation with much lower read noise. The EOS R is supposed to have similar sensor to the 5D IV, but seems more inclined to show banding.
Sony sensors also depend on the camera they are used in. Sony has you to choose between compression artifacts or completely uncompressed files. Thick sensor cover glass cause more corner smearing with some lenses.
Modern Sony sensors introduce new problems. From the A7r II there was significantly more thermal long exposure noise. Phase pixels for on-sensor PDAF sometimes causes artifacts and banding. Worst on the A9 with highest population of phase pixels.
You don't choose a camera only because of how the sensor handles situations you might encounter. There is a totality that must be considered.
If you are considering moving to FF mirrorless, I would say wait at least half a year and see how things pan out now.
You can't generalize Canon sensors. They are as different internally as to other brands. My 5D II could show the linen pattern even after moderate push. My 5DSR never does. The 5D IV sensor is a new generation with much lower read noise. The EOS R is supposed to have similar sensor to the 5D IV, but seems more inclined to show banding.
Sony sensors also depend on the camera they are used in. Sony has you to choose between compression artifacts or completely uncompressed files. Thick sensor cover glass cause more corner smearing with some lenses.
Modern Sony sensors introduce new problems. From the A7r II there was significantly more thermal long exposure noise. Phase pixels for on-sensor PDAF sometimes causes artifacts and banding. Worst on the A9 with highest population of phase pixels.
You don't choose a camera only because of how the sensor handles situations you might encounter. There is a totality that must be considered.
If you are considering moving to FF mirrorless, I would say wait at least half a year and see how things pan out now. ...Show more →
Nah, no smear with native lenses, only select rangefinder lenses. PDAF may cause some banding but haven't get one, they say it might happen if you're shooting in LED lights environment with EFCS turned on.
frezeiss wrote:
Nah, no smear with native lenses, only select rangefinder lenses. PDAF may cause some banding but haven't get one, they say it might happen if you're shooting in LED lights environment with EFCS turned on.
While I don't want to exaggerate these phenomena, the word "only" can take some qualification. It is only with select rangefinder lenses that the smearing is obvious and makes the lenses almost unusable. In between there is the whole range of degrees of reduced MTF due to sensor stanck thinkness not matching what the lenses were designed for. Even with adapted Canon EF wide angle lenses, there was some visible reduction of MTF in the outer parts of the image, compared to when used on a Canon sensor. This was mostly discussed when the A7r was new.
I tested the R for a week in a setting of wildlife photography (Kenya, Masai Mara NR).
My experience is that the system as a whole is very promising. Lens line up looks good (I had the 24-105 with me and that's a very good one), the AF is very accurate, battery life is more than fine, the viewfinder is great, adapted lenses work just as well as on a DSLR (and maybe even better in some situations due to on sensor AF - I used it with a 100-400 II and 500 II with 1.4 extender) and ergonomics in general work well.
The R is not a 5D IV alternative; for that I found the use of handling just a bit too slow, and it can't be customised as much (plus, for pro work, I am in the camp that thinks dual slots are mandatory), so I see it as some sort of 6D mirrorless version (but just a bit too expensive). For personal use, portraits, landscape, travel and such I think it's a great camera. Not so much for sports/wildlife/weddings.
However, I've enjoyed shooting it a lot, and I have some very good shots, taken with the R. In some cases, with AF, it outperformed the 5D IV due to the accuracy of the on sensor AF.
To be honest, I brought it along with two 5D4's and figured I would just use the R occasionally, but in the end used it just as much as the other camera's. The start is here, the future looks bright and I am definitely interested in a pro-oriented R body.
alundeb wrote:
While I don't want to exaggerate these phenomena, the word "only" can take some qualification. It is only with select rangefinder lenses that the smearing is obvious and makes the lenses almost unusable. In between there is the whole range of degrees of reduced MTF due to sensor stanck thinkness not matching what the lenses were designed for. Even with adapted Canon EF wide angle lenses, there was some visible reduction of MTF in the outer parts of the image, compared to when used on a Canon sensor. This was mostly discussed when the A7r was new.
Maybe, I did find WB a bit off when using Milvus F mount lenses but didnt scrutinize into the corners. Once again, this didnt happen with native lenses..
white wrote:
"TeamSpeed", stay happy and avoid trying a Sony sensor.
Actually ones experience will vary depending on what you shoot and how you image process. Extreme noise at high ISO masks banding for instance. It shows more at low ISO and particularly with say landscape work where one is more inclined to open the shadows more extremely. But even in portraiture at moderate ISO Canon banding will creep in if you try to open the dark tones too much.
It is surprising how much more malleable the Sony RAW files are to work on.
When my wife saw a side by side comparison, she said the Canon files looked like they had a linen cloth pattern superimposed over them. She then told me to switch systems...Show more →
1) I am pretty adept at Canon raw and JPEG processing, and have laid out tutorials on this in the past, while also selling Photoshop actions for this.
2) These images are 20K or more. I routinely shoot the 5D4 at 25600 during indoor events. 80% of what I shoot is high ISO of 6400 or higher.
I still really haven’t decided. I like the idea of the evf and the compact size. However, I’m planning on photographing eagles next month, so any autofocus advantage I can get over them(flying down to the lake to catch fish), I’ll take. This means that I’ll probably end up getting a 5D4 instead.
The camera itself seems fine. But the lack of impressive native RF mount lenses will keep me away from the system for now. I have no interest in using a clumsy adapter that makes the camera as big as the SLR's it is supposed to replace.
I appreciate Canon's (and Nikon's) predicament. They don't want to alienate the existing family of SLR users by abruptly discontinuing the EF line. So they will drag this "introductory" process out for years. Canon will slowly release RF lenses and perhaps new bodies over the next several years while continuing to support the EF users. When they are satisfied there is no more revenue to be had from the EF market, Canon it will quietly stop development and new EF products will cease to appear.
Looking at the Fuji X line as a comparison, it took 8 years to grow from 1 body + 3 lenses into a full fledged "system". And Fuji has been 100% committed to the X system from day one. If Canon juggles two lines simultaneously, even with their massive corporate resources I bet it is a full decade before they fully commit to the mirrorless RF system.
Seems the Rf 50 and 28-70 are quite impressive... with a 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 most likely coming next year (and new R bodies too), Canon’s start regarding lenses is quite good and surely better than what Nikon has so far.
Along with rumours that new big white DO lenses are coming for RF first i get the impression Canon takes this rather seriously and is rapidly going to expand this system.
Furthermore, the adapter is really small and light and adapted lenses work very well. And its the lenses that you put on it that might make the whole packqge big or smaller. The Rf lenses itself are quite big too, by the way if you want fast apertures.
I considered it but ended up with the MK IV instead. I guess I don't really see the advantage in a full frame mirrorless camera. By the time you get big glass on it, the size difference is negligible. What is the advantage at that point?
jzucker wrote:
I considered it but ended up with the MK IV instead. I guess I don't really see the advantage in a full frame mirrorless camera. By the time you get big glass on it, the size difference is negligible. What is the advantage at that point?
EVF? AF up to -6 EV? Thousands of accurate AF points spread over the (near to) entire format, accessable in the break of a second?
I see the new basic EOS-R and the very impressive RF lenses just released as the first gust of wind prior to the storm that will hit in 2020.
I think we will see some VERY nice mirrorless bodies and lenses in the coming months and year such as the mirrorless successor to the 5DIV and hopefully to the 7D2.
But once Canon releases the kraken at the Olympics we will see the EF mounts slowly fading away afterwards. Canon will then focus their resources on mirrorless tech from then on once they regain their supremacy over Sonikon and will hold the torch once again.
jeffbuzz wrote:
The camera itself seems fine. But the lack of impressive native RF mount lenses will keep me away from the system for now. I have no interest in using a clumsy adapter that makes the camera as big as the SLR's it is supposed to replace.
Uh... what? Every native RF lens released so far is at least somewhat impressive. One (the RF 50/1.2L) is reported to be one of the finest 50 mm lenses ever made, and one (the 28-70/2L) is literally unique -- no other lens manufacturer in the world sells one.
As for the adapter - it isn't 'clumsy' at all, though it does add some length to the EF lenses you use it with. I suppose if you think the only (or at least an important) attribute of a mirrorless system is to be more compact, then I guess the R and most of the current RF lenses aren't for you. But I find other attributes more compelling than the physical size of it.
As long as my Canon gear gives me this, I am quite happy. However the EOSR isn't for me. The pro version will be, so I sit and wait!
