chez wrote:
For me it’s all about the images and memories that photography captures. I personally would not drag around a pack full of gear for 4 weeks through Vietnam no matter how much fun I have pressing the shutter if it wasn’t for the memories I bring back home and share with others. To that end, a light kit is one key attribute I look for in my gear as when things get heavy and tiresome, all the fun quickly disappears.
bobbytan wrote:
That is exactly what I mean about the fun factor. It’s a balance of all the things that are most important to you - size/weight, specs/features, image quality, price, etc. For me and what I shoot, it was the Olympus. I switched to the R5 for 3 reasons: 45MP sensor (I love to crop and I compete), bird-eye AF, and the lightweight 100-500L lens. The R5 with the 100-500L is a terrific combo for bird photography - and fun/enjoyable to use.
The issue for me (and probably some others) is that the most enjoyable to use is not necesarily the one that will get the best images for my purposes. A full-sized, real camera like a Canon 1D series or Nikon Dn series is great to use. Unfortunately they don't have the MP. Now that we are or will soon be forced to use the MILC, it is difficult to enjoy photography due to the eye, brain, and in many cases hand fatigue. However, I've used rangefinders, medium formats, etc., so some suffering is often necessary to get the best images under the circumstances.
TeamSpeed wrote:
@melcat@, The sony is dimensionally smaller than the R6 and they are virtually the same weight. Not sure what to say if you found the Sony more fitting to your hands, if you truly have larger hands.
(Did you really mean me? Your original post had AmbientMike instead.)
You decide whether you think my hands are large – I gave the measurement in my original post where I called them "largish".
The measurement method is: hold your hand with palm towards you and fingers and thumbs together. Now measure it across at the widest point, which will be at the middle of the 3 joints of the thumb. I got 10.5cm.
Finger length also varies, but the differences between finger lengths on the same hand also vary, supposedly also by sex, so that's all too hard and I didn't measure it. It could easily be that the difference between finger lengths affects camera comfort more than the median, mean or maximum length. (I suspect that's my problem with Canon bodies, as the difference is quite big in my case.)
Remember everyone, if your hands are small it may well be that "only hands small", so don't be embarrassed to post your own width:
I simply posted that the dimensions of the Sony is smaller, and simply doesn't work for me, while also would confuse me when somebody thinks the Sony fits better with a "largish" hand over something like the R6. 2 of my fingers hang off the bottom of the body, but not quite so bad on the R series bodies. My hands aren't large either. The link provides the HxWxD and the weights.
I mistaken your response as being from Mike, due to how FM renders names and hidden posts, etc, so I made a mistake there and corrected it.
timgangloff wrote:
Tough call but if you already have the Sony lenses, why the desire to or thought of moving to Canon?
The advantages of Canon, to me, are the availability of used lenses. There are just more Canon shooters out there and therefore, a greater number of used lenses should you prefer to buy used. But other than that, I don't know of any advantages of Canon at this time. Rumored Canon cameras sound great, but who knows when they get released and what their full specs will be. I don't think anyone saw the a1 specs coming, so it's possible that the Canon camera will be even better than rumored.
I've been shooting sports professionally for about 15 years and about 12 of those with the best Canon cameras you could buy. I don't notice any differences in robustness between brands. No differences in dust accumulation (other than I don't get oil splatters anymore ;-) )
You mention you shoot some action stuff. Not sure what you mean by action, but if it's fast action or with fast moving balls, you may need the faster sensor readout speeds of the Sony. The r5 can do lots of sports without issues, but some sports with really fast moving objects can be an issue. The Sony won't have those issues.
Not sure how many pixels you need. The r5 and A1 are pretty equal. If you need fewer, the a9II or r6 could be a good buy but I'd suggest the a9II is a better buy than the r6, especially if you have the Sony lenses already.
I talked to a photographer the other day leaving her internship at a local newspaper and wanting to do photography full time including some sports stuff. She would be buying into a new system and essentially starting from scratch. I encouraged her to look at Canon because I think it's a cheaper eco-system to get into when funds are limited because of the used lens market and that Sony doesn't even have a couple of lenses most poor cash strapped sports photographers need. For example, you can buy a used Canon 300 2.8 for a good price and Sony doesn't even have one. Same for getting an older Canon 400 2.8. With Sony you are pretty limited and probably would be buying a new 400 2.8 at $13K . Well beyond her budget. Same with the Sony 70-200 2.8. Hard to find used and it's an expensive lens compared to an older version of the Canon 70-200 2.8. Incidentally, my Sony 70-200 is as sharp or sharper than my beloved Canon 70-200 2.8 IS III. Guess I got a good copy. I do hear there is copy variation with this lens.
I've had good and bad experiences with both CPS and SPS. No difference there IMHO.
I know he's a Sony sponsored shooter, but I guy I trust and that produces nearly unparalleled work is mountain climber/videographer Renan Ozturk. He shoots at the most extreme conditions and uses a Sony. I don't care if you are paid or not, I'm not climbing Everest with a camera that might fail. Well, I'm not attempting it period, but he seems to make it sing. I'm sure he could make a Canon sing as well, but the point is that the Sony is quite capable in the most extreme environments so I'm sure it would work for you in Alaska.
One thing I do like about the Sony is the 200-600. It's probably the best value lens I've ever used for daytime sports/wildlife. Just need good light, but wow, the versatility of this lens can't be emphasized enough. I'm not sure if Canon has an equal at this time.
But the bottom line is what is your current system not doing for you? Will the Canon body fix that? Or can a newer Sony body fix it?
Hey I just wanted to say thank you for the well thought out and wonderful response. Renan is a big inspiration of mine, I did not realized he shot on Sony. Before I do anything I am probably going to rent an r5 for a week and think on it and then I'll make a decision, right now I'm leaning towards sticking with Sony.
I'm far less experienced that these other people, but I can tell you a bit about the though process when I look at the major FF offerings:
Sony: Once you've dealt with Sony (or Nikon) raw files, you've seen the best dynamic range. Sony raw files are just a pleasure to work with. I tend to dislike Sony ergonomics. Part of it is the lack of a top lcd, part of it is the crazy number of pages in the menu system. Thankfully I set the custom buttons for my most used features, but for me, personally, it never feels quite as intuitive as Canon and Nikon.
Canon: I like Canon ergonomics and their lens library is exhaustive. You will never lack a good lens option for specific area, except for maybe a few corner cases.
I haven't shot Canon in awhile, but when I did, I always shot a little differently: stronger use of ND's, sometimes sacrificing highlights a little to make sure that I didn't need to push up shadows as much, or blend multiple exposures (but I tend to be a 'get it in 1 shot' person).
What kills me is the cost of the R5. $3800 is eye wateringly expensive. But if money were no object, the case for the R5 and the Canon system is compelling.
I went multiple routes with mirrorless, but at least between Sony and Canon, I ended up with A7R4 simply because I could find one so much cheaper than an R5, and I couldn't justify the price difference. If I were deeply embedded in Sony, I think I'd see no reason to switch. Why do an upheaval, taking the huge financial loss to sell and switch systems?
At that point, mind as well get A1 instead of an R5.
The only reason I'd switch is for some lenses that might change the game: like Canon's new RF 70-200 2.8 that's just so much easier to carry around.
The A1 is $6,500 vs the $3,900 R5. The R5 is the A9 and A7R3 ... 2 cameras rolled into one ... and it’s practically as good as the A1. So how is it eye-wateringly expensive? And really, how much better is the A1 over the R5? IMO the R5 is hands down a much better deal.
evertdoorn wrote:
All I can say is: what an amazing time we live in that we have so many great options! I myself have shot Canon for the past 25 years, now two R5's which is my first venture into mirrorless and all I can say is wow.. by far the best camera's I've ever owned. But the colleagues (I'm a pro shooter) and friends I have that work with Sony are very happy with their choice either. I think ultimately the devil is in the details; what is important specifically for your needs?
Renting or loaning an R5 is certainly a good idea; I suggest doing that for a bit longer than just a few days. It took me quite some time to get used to and set it up to my preferences.
It was just the same for me. I traded in one of my 5D IVs last year for an R5 and I was uncertain to begin with (I had particular trouble with focusing after the 5D's spot focus, due to the large area the R5's spot focus seemed to cover) but after a few weeks it began to grow on me. Now, I love it and I've just traded in my other 5D IV for another R5. I do like the fact that it is so similar to use to the 5D series, as I've always found them so intuitive.
A lot of interesting data in there, n=951, by sex and race, army data too. On the problems faced with hand camera fit, I believe a key indicator often overlooked is hand muscularity - the amount and shape and strength of the muscle mass at the base of the hand, the webbing between thumb and index finger, and especially the muscle outside the little finger bones. And palm concaveness.
These all strongly affect glove sizing too. Swimmers, tradies and MTB people will have very different hand muscle mass as compared with runners, office workers and sedentary pianists. My muso mates would really protect their hands, they tended to have narrow, long fingers. The bike gang guys, not so much.
bobbytan wrote:
The A1 is $6,500 vs the $3,900 R5. The R5 is the A9 and A7R3 ... 2 cameras rolled into one ... and it’s practically as good as the A1. So how is it eye-wateringly expensive? And really, how much better is the A1 over the R5? IMO the R5 is hands down a much better deal.
So, 2 answers. You get an A1 if you're in the Sony ecosystem. What do you possibly gain by selling all your Sony lenses at 50% loss, buying all the Canon equivalent, then dropping $3800 on the R5 body? Mind as well put those funds towards the A1. You get 30FPS (you're practically taking video), more mpx, BSI-CMOs...
If you're not in the Sony ecosystem, sure. The Canon is the better deal.
Second answer: The A7R4 is easily found for $2500. I got it for even less than that. The A7r4 is often in the same conversation as the R5 for birds: and I don't even shoot birds.
I gave a good hard look at the Canon. If I were more into wildlife, I might have gone that direction.
Other than that, if I were embedded deeply in Sony, I'd only switch if there was a clear demerit in Sony system that I was trying to solve, like ergonomics or a lens that I needed to have in Canon.
If you already own a number of high-end Sony lenses sticking with Sony would make perfect sense, of course. Both systems are extremely capable and you cannot go wrong with either one.
nineblade wrote:
So, 2 answers. You get an A1 if you're in the Sony ecosystem. What do you possibly gain by selling all your Sony lenses at 50% loss, buying all the Canon equivalent, then dropping $3800 on the R5 body? Mind as well put those funds towards the A1. You get 30FPS (you're practically taking video), more mpx, BSI-CMOs...
If you're not in the Sony ecosystem, sure. The Canon is the better deal.
Second answer: The A7R4 is easily found for $2500. I got it for even less than that. The A7r4 is often in the same conversation as the R5 for birds: and I don't even shoot birds.
I gave a good hard look at the Canon. If I were more into wildlife, I might have gone that direction.
Other than that, if I were embedded deeply in Sony, I'd only switch if there was a clear demerit in Sony system that I was trying to solve, like ergonomics or a lens that I needed to have in Canon....Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
The A1 is $6,500 vs the $3,900 R5. The R5 is the A9 and A7R3 ... 2 cameras rolled into one ... and it’s practically as good as the A1. So how is it eye-wateringly expensive? And really, how much better is the A1 over the R5? IMO the R5 is hands down a much better deal.
If you were to switch from Sony to Canon, than the cost of replacing lenses is more expensive than getting the top of the line Sony. When I thought about switching to Sony or Nikon, before canon came out with the 5DsR (actually - it was a bit earlier when I was having issues with the 1DIII focusing), the main reason not to as the amount I had invested in Canon lenses. It used to be lens cycles were longer, now though lenses get upgraded a lot faster. I had the EF 80-200 f2.8L and the 70-200 f2.8L longer than the other versions of the lens. I also had the 28-70 f2.8L longer than the 24-70L.
In the end I stuck with Canon of the 5 lenses I had, despite really being tempted by Nikon when they released the 14-24. I also couldn’t get myself to buy a Nikon after the experience I had with the reliability of the F-801 back in the early 90’s, and the lousy customer service from Nikon Canada. Later, I also considered Sony because of the higher MP offering with higher DR, but again investment I had in Canon lenses, and my dislike of the ergonomics onthe Sony I tried back than, made the decision to stay with Canon a no brainer. I was happy I did stay when they released the 5DsR.
If you have a very compelling reason to switch to another system then do it. I took a heavy loss when I switched back from Olympus to Canon. I had 6 or 7 good Olympus lenses and I am now down to only 2 Canon lenses - but I have no regrets. Olympus was stuck at 20MP and their AF for BIF leaves much to be desired. When Canon released the R5 with bird-eye AF, a 45MB sensor, and 100-500mm lens weighing only 3 lbs the writing was on the wall for me. They checked all my boxes.
khurram1 wrote:
If you were to switch from Sony to Canon, than the cost of replacing lenses is more expensive than getting the top of the line Sony. When I thought about switching to Sony or Nikon, before canon came out with the 5DsR (actually - it was a bit earlier when I was having issues with the 1DIII focusing), the main reason not to as the amount I had invested in Canon lenses. It used to be lens cycles were longer, now though lenses get upgraded a lot faster. I had the EF 80-200 f2.8L and the 70-200 f2.8L longer than the other versions of the lens. I also had the 28-70 f2.8L longer than the 24-70L.
In the end I stuck with Canon of the 5 lenses I had, despite really being tempted by Nikon when they released the 14-24. I also couldn’t get myself to buy a Nikon after the experience I had with the reliability of the F-801 back in the early 90’s, and the lousy customer service from Nikon Canada. Later, I also considered Sony because of the higher MP offering with higher DR, but again investment I had in Canon lenses, and my dislike of the ergonomics onthe Sony I tried back than, made the decision to stay with Canon a no brainer. I was happy I did stay when they released the 5DsR. ...Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
If you have a very compelling reason to switch to another system then do it. I took a heavy loss when I switched back from Olympus to Canon. I had 6 or 7 good Olympus lenses and I am now down to only 2 Canon lenses - but I have no regrets. Olympus was stuck at 20MP and their AF for BIF leaves much to be desired. When Canon released the R5 with bird-eye AF, a 45MB sensor, and 100-500mm lens weighing only 3 lbs the writing was on the wall for me. They checked all my boxes.
I can think of lots of reasons to move from Olympus to Canon R, including the uncertain future of the Olympus system. From Sony to Canon though? It would take a lot to get me to make that move - I don't even know that it's possible. Even if the Canon's rumored 85MP 20FPS beast is real, I still wouldn't give up my A1 and stable of fabulous Sony (and adapted Leica) lenses.
bobbytan wrote:
The A1 is $6,500 vs the $3,900 R5. The R5 is the A9 and A7R3 ... 2 cameras rolled into one ... and it’s practically as good as the A1. So how is it eye-wateringly expensive? And really, how much better is the A1 over the R5? IMO the R5 is hands down a much better deal.
The R5 probably is a "better deal" - cost & quality of lenses also a factor
CW100 wrote:
The R5 probably is a "better deal" - cost & quality of lenses also a factor
The R5 is without a doubt the better deal over the A1. In terms of the results a photographer can get from either system, the only real deciding factor between the two (A1 and R5) is the skillset of the photographer him/herself. All things equal, at that point, the money you spend to get the A1 over the R5 is a nonfactor in terms of the results you get.
I doubt the A1 has anything in it that makes it so much better than the R5 that a photographer with the skillset necessary to maximum its abilities would need to get a photograph from that system that he could not get from the R5.
The A1 is an amazing camera - a true showpiece of what a camera company can do when they want to take the best of everything they offer and put it into one system - and it is priced accordingly. But the R5, for the money, brings a lot more value to the table.
Sony did something I never expected any camera manufacturer to do. They managed to release a top tier camera that spec for spec beats everything on the market but somehow, at the same time, made another manufacturer's camera look even better from a value perspective. Had Sony released it at a lower price point, this would be an entirely different conversation. The R5 would have been completely overshadowed and literally only been an option for those who are either A. highly invested already in Canon or B. prefer everything else the Canon system offers compared to the Sony.
Imagine if Sony had released the A1 at or near the same price point as the R5. You could then get an open mount system with all of the lens options across all of the brands native on a camera that can literally do almost anything. That's a hard choice to pass up.
However, the Sony, in comparison to the R5, is price prohibitive now. You're now weighing the option of spending twice as much for how much more of a gain, overall? And let's keep in mind, from what the reports/rumors are saying, Canon appears to just be getting started. The next few years are going to be interesting. So yeah, if Canon offers the lenses you want, it's definitely a better value than the Sony IMO and I love all of the camera systems for various reasons.
Canon will release a lot of new lenses in the next couple of years. Yes, they are only just getting started. Expect to also see 3rd party lenses sooner than later. And possibly the first Canon camera to use a global sensor. Exciting times ahead for both the Canon and Sony brand who will continue to leapfrog each other. And Nikon is not playing dead either!
Elusivesouls wrote:
The R5 is without a doubt the better deal over the A1. In terms of the results a photographer can get from either system, the only real deciding factor between the two (A1 and R5) is the skillset of the photographer him/herself. All things equal, at that point, the money you spend to get the A1 over the R5 is a nonfactor in terms of the results you get.
I doubt the A1 has anything in it that makes it so much better than the R5 that a photographer with the skillset necessary to maximum its abilities would need to get a photograph from that system that he could not get from the R5.
The A1 is an amazing camera - a true showpiece of what a camera company can do when they want to take the best of everything they offer and put it into one system - and it is priced accordingly. But the R5, for the money, brings a lot more value to the table.
Sony did something I never expected any camera manufacturer to do. They managed to release a top tier camera that spec for spec beats everything on the market but somehow, at the same time, made another manufacturer's camera look even better from a value perspective. Had Sony released it at a lower price point, this would be an entirely different conversation. The R5 would have been completely overshadowed and literally only been an option for those who are either A. highly invested already in Canon or B. prefer everything else the Canon system offers compared to the Sony.
Imagine if Sony had released the A1 at or near the same price point as the R5. You could then get an open mount system with all of the lens options across all of the brands native on a camera that can literally do almost anything. That's a hard choice to pass up.
However, the Sony, in comparison to the R5, is price prohibitive now. You're now weighing the option of spending twice as much for how much more of a gain, overall? And let's keep in mind, from what the reports/rumors are saying, Canon appears to just be getting started. The next few years are going to be interesting. So yeah, if Canon offers the lenses you want, it's definitely a better value than the Sony IMO and I love all of the camera systems for various reasons. ...Show more →
The only catch, and it's a big catch for some, is the rolling shutter you get with the r5. For some, it's tolerable or a non-issue. For serious sports work or fast moving subjects, it's a huge issue. The cost of the A1 fixes that issue. That technology is apparently not cheap, as Canon could not do it at the r5 price point.
Elusivesouls wrote:
The R5 is without a doubt the better deal over the A1. In terms of the results a photographer can get from either system, the only real deciding factor between the two (A1 and R5) is the skillset of the photographer him/herself. All things equal, at that point, the money you spend to get the A1 over the R5 is a nonfactor in terms of the results you get.
I doubt the A1 has anything in it that makes it so much better than the R5 that a photographer with the skillset necessary to maximum its abilities would need to get a photograph from that system that he could not get from the R5.
The A1 is an amazing camera - a true showpiece of what a camera company can do when they want to take the best of everything they offer and put it into one system - and it is priced accordingly. But the R5, for the money, brings a lot more value to the table.
Sony did something I never expected any camera manufacturer to do. They managed to release a top tier camera that spec for spec beats everything on the market but somehow, at the same time, made another manufacturer's camera look even better from a value perspective. Had Sony released it at a lower price point, this would be an entirely different conversation. The R5 would have been completely overshadowed and literally only been an option for those who are either A. highly invested already in Canon or B. prefer everything else the Canon system offers compared to the Sony.
Imagine if Sony had released the A1 at or near the same price point as the R5. You could then get an open mount system with all of the lens options across all of the brands native on a camera that can literally do almost anything. That's a hard choice to pass up.
However, the Sony, in comparison to the R5, is price prohibitive now. You're now weighing the option of spending twice as much for how much more of a gain, overall? And let's keep in mind, from what the reports/rumors are saying, Canon appears to just be getting started. The next few years are going to be interesting. So yeah, if Canon offers the lenses you want, it's definitely a better value than the Sony IMO and I love all of the camera systems for various reasons. ...Show more →
You're basically right but value can't be considered in a vacuum. Dollar for dollar the R5 offers more than the A1, but few people are comparing an R5 to an A1 in isolation. You have to shoot Canon in order to enjoy the R5 value proposition. If you're ensconced in the Sony system, the R5 is a terrible value and the A1 is an extravagant "halo" update you may or may not need. If you're ensconced in the Canon system, the R5 should feel like a screaming deal, and the A1 does not hold any attraction at all given the chasm in system compatibility and price.
What Canon has done is stop the bleeding over to Sony, and convinced some Sony users to switch to Canon. Sony has shown that it is listening to customers by visibly improving cameras (some of which are sold at high prices). The nice thing about Sony mirrorless today is that you have a lot more camera choices than Canon - ironic since in the mirrorless game, Sony is the incumbent and Canon the newcomer. I also haven't done a rigorous comparison but I think Sony lens prices tend to be a little lower than their Canon counterparts.
Unfortunately they don't have the MP. Now that we are or will soon be forced to use the MILC, it is difficult to enjoy photography due to the eye, brain, and in many cases hand fatigue. However, I've used rangefinders, medium formats, etc., so some suffering is often necessary to get the best images under the circumstances. 