Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

tylerdurden801
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

My A7R3 took a tumble recently and works, but not super reliably, especially the image stabilizer. 24-105G also took a hit. I've been thinking about switching systems even before this excuse to buy new gear, but now it's time to actually pull the trigger. Initially I was going to get an A7R5 and the 24-70GM II, but after playing around with it at the store, it left me cold. The new screen works great, but the side hinge is big and clunky. Despite the specs of the displays, they look kinda coarse in use. The weird mix of locking control wheels is irritating. On paper it's got what I want, but I just didn't like it, so I'm looking elsewhere.

GFX would be great for what I do (mostly landscape) in terms of IQ, but the size of the system is not for me, I take my gear on multiday backpacking trips. I rented a Z7II for a week, but didn't gel with the system at all. I'd prefer to stay full frame, which leave me checking out an R5. Before I went mirrorless I shot Canon for 10+ years, but got tired of the AF issues and terrible sensor performance (super digital looking noise, subpar DR), which prompted me to get into the Sony system and I was blown away by the images.

Canon appears to have caught up or at least competes in sensor and AF performance, and the body just feels right. Good ergos, good menus, good quality displays. I am a bit apprehensive of the glass though. Sony's latest GM zooms are not only optically excellent, they're small and light enough to take on a long trek. Canon's f2.8 zooms are (70-200 aside), bigger and heavier, so I'd prefer to get the f4L zooms. I'm not gonna lie, I'm a bit of a pixel peeper, are these up to snuff for critical landscape work? Would I regret not getting the f2.8 lenses? Speed isn't an issue, just optical quality. Is Canon's glass up to par with the second gen GM glass?

It's not a small decision, and I'm hoping to get some thoughts from others who have made this switch. In the end, I'm not a pro, so absolute bleeding edge quality isn't required, I'm mostly wondering if I'm setting myself up for disappointment. IQ isn't the driving factor in my dissatisfaction with Sony, it's the fact that the cameras aren't enjoyable to use, which I feel like I get with the R5.

Sorry for the ramble, thanks for any help.

Oct 24, 2023 at 09:06 AM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

Both systems are unique in their own way. I currently shoot with both Canon (R6) and Sony (A7c). In my particular case it all boils down to ergonomics. I use my A7c for travel; I use my R6 for everything else.

The only slight drawback with the Canon RF ecosystem is Canon's decision to not let 3rd party manufacturers make lenses for the RF mount. Not a big deal though thanks to the awesome EF to RF adapter made by Canon. You can use all EF lenses on a new R series body without issues.

A usual cliche is "which system would I re-buy if I had to do it all over again". My answer is both. At the beginning of this year I sold off all my Sony equipment and stayed exclusively with Canon. I quickly came to regret that decision mostly because my R6 (even with my RF pancake lenses) was not compact enough for travel. I ended up re-purchasing a Sony A7c with two lenses.

Oct 24, 2023 at 09:42 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

I get the best colors out of DPP and Canon, vs other raw processors and the m4/3 I shot. I had a lot of trouble getting good colors using other raw processors. Haven't used Sony, not really that interested in doing so.

Not sure how much difference there is, but seen complaints about Sony color, even from one guy doing his own profiles, lately. Seems like the more SOOC photos posted on here didn't used to look as good.

Oct 24, 2023 at 09:57 AM

Critters
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

I started out with Canon T3i, 7D, 5D3 and 5DSR. I bought a Sony A7R3 for the ibis since I was on a medication that caused severe tremors in my hands (couldn't hold food on a fork, let alone hold a Canon camera steady with Zeiss MF lenses.)
I ultimately sold all my Canon bodies and decided to go with a Sony A7R4 and the 200-600 lens. I realized two things about that lens...it was too heavy for hiking for me in my 80's and the minimum focus was too long for little critters.
I bought the Canon R5 and the 100-500 lens and am really happy with that combination!
I still had some Voightlander lenses which I enjoy a lot and a couple of Sony zooms and when the Sony A7R5 came out, I sold my A7R4 and A6600 to buy it. Really like that camera a lot!
I now realize it is more important to get the lenses you want even if you have to get used to two different systems.

Oct 24, 2023 at 11:40 AM

patotts
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

You are doing the right thing when you are looking around. As a landscape shooter, the innovation in the a7RV might not be worth paying for, e.g. the AI-driven AF system, but I would think that the higher res and flipping backscreen, the excellent dynamic range of the 61mp sensor, the high res EVF, focus stacking, and other features/functions would come in very handy, esp if you upgrade that 24-105/4 Sony lenses which I always found rather underwhelming.

I used to shoot Canon as well (10D, 30D, 5D and Mk II, and later a couple of R5's) and if you think you like the R5, then I suggest renting one for a weekend and really try it out. The AF system is very capable, the colors are great, the dynamic range is a bit less than Sony's best sensor, but surely more than good enough. The two downsides, for me, are: the R5 is 3+ yrs old, and a new gen is around the corner. That is OK because it is still a very good and competitive camera, but I'd advice to buy it right, perhaps mint used here on FM for under $3K, because the value of it will keep on dropping. Secondly, the lens system: lack of 3rd party lenses gives you much fewer options and drives up prices on the native stuff as Canon can charge whatever they want. I like Canon's RF 24-105/4 more than the Sony ditto, it is a great travel lens. It is not an ultra light package at over 3 lbs/1,500 gr but surely doable.

As I said, rent or borrow an R5, shoot for a weekend - it is very easy to get used to and get along with a R5, and then pixel-peep on the files to make sure you are happy.

Best of luck!

Oct 24, 2023 at 12:42 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

I agree about the R5 - my hesitation would be that its replacement *should* be relatively soon. But yeah, it's still a very good camera, if it is a bit of a battery hog. You don't seem to shoot much action, so e-shutter performance might not be a consideration where it is certainly considerably better than anything Sony offers in this category that isn't stacked sensor. Though this does drop it from 14 to 12 bit depth files, which results in a notable low ISO DR hit. Definitely consider buying one used if you end up going for it.

Regarding the RF 70-200 lenses: from my experience with the f/2.8 version and reviews by others, it's apparently technically slightly sharper at wider apertures than the f/4 version. I have used both and thought the f/2.8 was great and I enjoyed using it much more than I ever did the EF versions. But I ended up with the f/4 because I found a used one an attractive price. I love how small and light it is. In the EF system I avoided the f/2.8 70-200 versions because they were large and heavy; I had the original f/4L IS version since its release. The RF version is optically better than that one, though not sure how it compares against the second EF f/4L IS version. If you're stopping down to around f/8 for landscapes anyway, there will probably be minimal differences between any options in this category.

It is somewhat disappointing that neither RF options accept tele converters. On this front, the new Sony f/4 v2 does, and it's also a collapsing/extending design like the Canons, but its compromise seems to be that it's not as small/short at the 70mm end, nor as light (100g difference), though it does have 0.5x macro capability and a tripod collar.

I have limited experience with Canon's RF 24-xx/x zooms. I tried the f/2.8 and thought it was kind of the same thing as the latest EF version. IOW, a competent lens but didn't wow me. I ended up with the 28-70/2, but primarily because I use it at or near wide open a lot and wanted its 'equivalent to primes' rendering. It's very sharp and surprisingly has a very well controlled amount of field curvature through the zoom range (another reason I bought it). I take it out for hikes, but I'm not out multiple days where its size and weight will become a significant pain point.

Oct 24, 2023 at 12:59 PM

tonychen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

Do you think Sony AF is generally better than Canon for the same product line? That's the impression I got from the reviews but I don't have the opportunity to confirm it. I had been a Canon user for several years since 7D but switched to Sony since a6000.

snegron7 wrote:
Both systems are unique in their own way. I currently shoot with both Canon (R6) and Sony (A7c). In my particular case it all boils down to ergonomics. I use my A7c for travel; I use my R6 for everything else.

The only slight drawback with the Canon RF ecosystem is Canon's decision to not let 3rd party manufacturers make lenses for the RF mount. Not a big deal though thanks to the awesome EF to RF adapter made by Canon. You can use all EF lenses on a new R series body without issues.

A usual cliche is "which...Show more →

Oct 24, 2023 at 01:19 PM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

I went from Sony to Canon in 2020, and then from Canon to Nikon this summer.

Having used all of the big 3 full frame systems, let me say: all three are absolutely fantastic. I far preferred Canon's ergonomics and controls to Sony's, and I think Canon has the best IBIS of all the full-frame cameras out there now. Canon's AF is phenomenal..even the R8 basically doesn't miss.

The downside to Canon right now is the locked down lens mount, so you have far fewer lens options. Canon's glass is outstanding, but there are some significant gaps, and no real pipeline to fill them until the mount opens up. This is a large reason of why I went over to Nikon, which has a few more options for the enthusiast in the native lenses (and my core lenses overall are just a touch better on Nikon), plus they have some third party options with Tamron releasing several lenses, plus the Voigtlander native Z lenses. However, the biggest plus is that with the Megadap adapter, the Nikon can take all Sony E-Mount lenses too. I actually use the Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM on my Z8 because I like it better than the Nikon.

Of Canon's top end lenses, the RF 50mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.2L are exceptional, and every bit as good as the best lenses from any other manufacturer. The f/2.8 zooms are also excellent, though I find the wide angle options to be just 'very good' rather than mind blowing. Canon's lacking a bit in the enthusiast range, though, with your options being the excellent L glass, or the still very good, but compromised in some manner consumer lenses. Lenses like the 35/1.8 and 85/2 are extremely sharp and generally very good lenses, but they have slow focus motors, and a somewhat pedestrian rendering of out of focus areas (though i quite like the 85/2 overall). There are also some really unique lenses like the 800/11, which is super compact for an 800mm lens, and still rather good optically.

However, I will say that you really can't go wrong with any of these systems. I really loved the R5, and it's an extremely complete body, with brilliant AF, good image quality and excellent IBIS. I'd imagine the upcoming R5 II will be even better.

Oct 24, 2023 at 01:20 PM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

Oct 24, 2023 at 01:20 PM

kylebarendrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

Regarding the lenses, I shoot mostly landscape and generally stick to the f/4 versions of the lenses. I have no qualms about the image quality versus the f/2.8 versions. Once you stop down to f/5.6 or smaller very few people, if anyone, can actually see a difference in the image between the two. The f/4 versions are nice and small/light so I don't mind carrying them around.

Oct 24, 2023 at 01:55 PM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

Oct 24, 2023 at 02:10 PM

Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

tylerdurden801 wrote:
GFX would be great for what I do (mostly landscape) in terms of IQ, but the size of the system is not for me, I take my gear on multiday backpacking trips. I rented a Z7II for a week, but didn't gel with the system at all. I'd prefer to stay full frame, which leave me checking out an R5. Before I went mirrorless I shot Canon for 10+ years, but got tired of the AF issues and terrible sensor performance (super digital looking noise, subpar DR), which prompted me to get into the Sony system and I was blown...Show more →

It seems to me you are more concerned with gear specs that have less to do with capturing a great landscape image than the photographer's ability and said photographer being competent at post-processing. Excellent landscape images have been made for more than the last ten years with various cameras, lenses, and formats. I can find many better landscape images IMO that were taken with M4/3 gear than other photographers have taken with FF gear. Why? More skillful photographers.

Since when are f2.8 lenses needed for landscape photography? What makes you think f2.8 lenses have better optical quality than f4 lenses? Canon's glass has been excellent for many years.

Why do you think IQ is the most important factor for best landscape images? For most people it is the subject, composition, color, lighting, etc., etc. that appeals to them the most, not the sharpness of the images. It is photographers that pixel-peep at large landscape prints, not the general public.

Take a look at landscape images taken by some of these M4/3 photographers and tell me why they are inferior to many landscape images taken with FF cameras.

https://www.creativeislandphoto.com/

https://www.franksmithphotos.com/

https://www.mattsuessphoto.com/

https://www.sulasula.com/en/home/

Oct 24, 2023 at 05:43 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

^ Certainly valid points, but this is a gear-centric forum and questions tend to be gear-driven.

tonychen wrote:
Do you think Sony AF is generally better than Canon for the same product line? That's the impression I got from the reviews but I don't have the opportunity to confirm it. I had been a Canon user for several years since 7D but switched to Sony since a6000.

My recent experience is all Canon-related and last fall I tested all of Canon's more recent FF cameras and the R7, from the R3 on down. Some of what I photograph is sports and have been a 1D series user since the original, so I fully expected to only be satisfied with the R3. In short, the R5 and R6 proved to have very capable AF and I couldn't really identify a real world difference in favor of the R3 (but other factors do favor the R3, such as the EVF experience). I ultimately replaced my 1DX/1DXII DSLRs with the R6II and sometimes use it at 40fps where it very impressively can accurately focus on fast moving athletes for virtually every frame. And that's with an adapted EF lens (200-400). Canon has a reputation for holding back the capabilities of their lower-end cameras, and that was certainly the case with their DSLRs. I couldn't tolerate the sluggishness of even the 5D series compared to the 1D series. But that seems to be much less the case with their FF mirrorless cameras. The AF performance I'm getting out of the R6II is better than Canon's top-tier DSLRs, and as I experienced, I couldn't recognize a notable difference compared to the R3 (maybe I didn't use it long enough?). Plus e-shutter with the R5, R6, R6II and R8 are all usable for action (not ideal for all applications, but usable), which isn't really the case for the competition at comparable price points, unless one spends more for a stacked sensor.

I'm sure Sony is great, given the numbers I see on the sidelines. It seems among sports photographers the DSLR transition went roughly 40% Sony, 40% Canon and 20% Nikon (possibly less). Sony has some great native glass and definitely has a head start here, but they still have notable gaps for sports-centric coverage. No fast 300 (apparently coming) and no 200-400/4 equivalent. Only just now did they improve their underperforming 70-200s. Sure, 400/2.8 and 600/4 are very usable especially on 50MP with cropping, but unlike birding and wildlife situations, sports tends to be less reach limited and an equal or greater problem is finding yourself suddenly with too long a lens. It's a significant reason why I'll never go back to super-tele primes for sports coverage.

Nikon isn't getting as much traction among sports photographers, but that doesn't seem to be the case with birders/wildlife photographers who are gushing over the recent telephoto options. But Nikon also appears to have released great glass at other focal lengths and categories. At the serious enthusiast level, the f/1.8 primes are IMO what I wish Canon offered in the RF line (though optically, Canon's 'cheap' lenses are surprisingly good). And the Z8 appears to be a really powerful all-rounder. Canon certainly have their work cut out for the R5II if they hope to effectively compete against the Z8's stacked sensor and still one-up it and Sony's offerings in other areas in order to remain relevant over the camera's likely ~3 year lifecycle.

For a generalist photographer, what Jordan has done, switching to the Z8 and cherry picking adapted Sony FE lenses appears to be a really good solution right now. It allows use of Nikon and Sony's lens pools rather than only Sony's (if you stay with Sony) or only Canon's (if you switch to Canon). And as others have noted, Canon is currently the least open to third party lenses. There are zero AF capable options currently available and so far only Voigtlander's 50/1.0 manual focus lens is available with a native RF mount with full electronic communication (to facilitate manual focus assist aids, automatic focal length recognition for IBIS, and EXIF info). Who knows how much longer until Canon permits AF capable third party lenses... I think Canon has some really great and interesting RF glass, but the breadth of selection is currently not on-par with other mirrorless systems, particularly if its gaps align with your lens needs (and if you're not interested in adapting EF lenses).

Oct 24, 2023 at 08:18 PM

Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

^ And how many lenses does one need for landscape photography and how necessary is the best AF?

And why all the chat about sports and wildlife photography that the OP does not even mention?

Oct 24, 2023 at 08:30 PM

bballfreak6
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

Oct 25, 2023 at 12:32 AM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

I’ve shot with most systems and they all do the job just fine. Key is how you feel using the camera. For me, Sony loses in that department. Only you can tell how it compares for you with Canon.

Oct 25, 2023 at 03:38 AM

tylerdurden801
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

Thanks for the input y'all. I agree it'd be best to wait six months to see what the next iteration of the R5 looks like, but I have a big trip coming up next month so I can't wait that long. I've rented before, and while I'm not totally against it, my experiences have been less than great (the Nikon kit I mentioned in OP was sent with a terrible copy of the 24-70 2.8, which didn't help my testing), I may go ahead and pull the trigger this weekend and if it turns out to be a case of buyers remorse I'll return it.

Oct 25, 2023 at 06:55 AM

tylerdurden801
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

Well, I did go ahead and pull the trigger, bought an R5 and the f4L trio of 14-35, 24-105, and 70-200. I really dig the ergonomics, menus, etc. The displays seem nicer than Sony's, despite the specs, they appear higher res in use. I gelled with the menu system is almost no time. Little things like the shutter sound being so quiet and well damped are just nice. Buttons seem to fall exactly where I need. There are some minor annoyances with customization (assigning ISO to a dial doesn't seem to work well, you can't switch between auto and manual using only the dial like you can on a Sony) or general behavior (why not give the option to stop down to the working aperture all the time instead of having to press a button), but overall it's a really nice camera to use, nicer than my Sony, maybe even much nicer. All that's left to review is the IQ, then . . .

I knew the OLPF would hurt the resolving of fine details, but it's a bit more than I expected on a 45mp sensor. Distant foliage is quite noticeably less detailed on the Canon than the Sony, and no amount of sharpening in post seems to improve it to the Sony's level of detail at base sharpening. I may be able to train myself to not be a pixel peeper, but I may not. If that were the only issue, I might be able to deal, but the lenses are also a step down. My current Sony zoom setup is the 16-35 GM (first version), 24-105 G (which as noted has been dropped on its head), and 70-200 G (first version). While I guess I shouldn't expect the UWA f4L to be as good as the GM, the difference is more pronounced than I expected. The GM is weakest at 35mm, and it's still better than the 14-35 anywhere in its range, across the frame. The 24-105L is an even bigger gap versus the Sony. The Sony isn't what I would call a stellar lens to begin with, but especially at the wide end, the corners on the Canon are just . . . not acceptable. Doesn't appear to be a centering issue, all corners are just suffering from astigmatism, and this is at f8. The 70-200's are mostly a draw, it's the only lens of the three that I would call on par with the Sony, and it may actually be a bit better.

So I'm not sure what to do. I'd rather not spring for the 2.8 versions of the wide and normal zooms and find out there's not much improvement, but I also really do like the R5. The other obvious option is an A7R5 and replace my dropped 24-105 G with something else, leaning towards the new 24-70 GM. I mostly shoot landscapes, and I appreciate the size and weight of the recent Sony lenses for packing on longer hikes or multiday excursions, plus the lack of an OLPF does seem to give a more pleasing file in the end, but I just don't love using the damn camera, and it's hard to know where to weight the decision. The more fun to use, pleasant camera, or the one with better IQ?

Nov 12, 2023 at 11:37 AM

gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

tylerdurden801 wrote:
My A7R3 took a tumble recently and works, but not super reliably, especially the image stabilizer. 24-105G also took a hit. I've been thinking about switching systems even before this excuse to buy new gear, but now it's time to actually pull the trigger. Initially I was going to get an A7R5 and the 24-70GM II, but after playing around with it at the store, it left me cold. The new screen works great, but the side hinge is big and clunky. Despite the specs of the displays, they look kinda coarse in use. The weird mix of locking control...Show more →

I’m sort of the resident curmudgeon when it comes to the idea of switching brands without good cause — or to satisfy ultimately unsatisfiable GAS — so think of this as the case against the switch. Note that it will entirely NOT be based on the inevitable “which is The Very Bestest Brand” thinking.

First, is the 24-105 the only Sony lens you use, or do you own others, too? If that’s the only lens, then a switch might make a little more sense than otherwise, at least in the context of (assuming the damage is unrepairable) you having to buy new stuff anyway. But if you own other lenses, too, then that provides an argument to just replace or repair what is broken and keep what works.

Then there is the question of whether Brand A is going to make your photography better than Brand B. There’s precious little (virtually none, actually) that your brand choice will have any visible effect on your photographic results. I have yet to meet anyone, photographer or viewer, who can look at excellent prints from photographer using a range of brands and identify which came from which brand. (Heck, I’ve been in shows that featured gear ranging from MFT to film… and very few could tell, and then only by asking the question and inspecting extremely closely… and knowing what to look for.)

So, Sony makes great gear that is used by excellent photographers to produce great photography. As does Canon and Nikon and Fujifilm…

… and the lenses from all of them are plenty good for landscape photography. (Though many of Canon’s best R lenses are still focusing on larger aperture lenses… which kind of contradicts your hope to build out a lighter, smaller system for backpacking, right?)

Finally, as I think you recognize (I’m reading between the lines here), GAS is a trap that never satisfies for long. I’m sure there are a few stories of someone doing the brand switch and remaining convinced that the new brand solved all of their problems. But I’ve seen a whole lot more stories (and posts in this and other forums) from people who switch brands and/or camera models looking for something new, shiny, and exciting… and who get that… for a few months… after which the same nagging doubts (or lack of excitement about the formerly new thing that is now newly old) send them off looking for the next hit of new gear dopamine.

None of this should be taken to suggest that Canon’s gear (which I happily use for half of my photography) is deficient by comparison to Sony in a general way.

Good luck.

POSTSCRIPT: I quoted and replied to your original message, and only when I posted it did I see that you did get the Canon system. Congratulations. It is a fine system, and I think that the lenses you got make sense for a landscape kit. I’m going to leave my post here as is, however.

I did note your comment about detail resolution. Keep in mind that the sharpening settings you used on your Sony system are probably not ideal for your new Canon system. You may need to adjust them to get the ideal sharpness you want.

- - -

kylebarendrick wrote:
Regarding the lenses, I shoot mostly landscape and generally stick to the f/4 versions of the lenses. I have no qualms about the image quality versus the f/2.8 versions. Once you stop down to f/5.6 or smaller very few people, if anyone, can actually see a difference in the image between the two. The f/4 versions are nice and small/light so I don't mind carrying them around.

I agree.

For example, I had the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens at one point — I got it for a non-landscape project. There is no question is was (and is) an excellent lens… but so is the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, which is also smaller and lighter. It took me a while to admit it to myself, but there was absolutely no advantage to having the f/2.8 version for my landscape photography, and I eventually sold it.

Nov 12, 2023 at 12:47 PM

drimer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Anyone here make the switch from Sony to Canon? Thoughts?

tylerdurden801 wrote:
Well, I did go ahead and pull the trigger, bought an R5 and the f4L trio of 14-35, 24-105, and 70-200. I really dig the ergonomics, menus, etc. The displays seem nicer than Sony's, despite the specs, they appear higher res in use. I gelled with the menu system is almost no time. Little things like the shutter sound being so quiet and well damped are just nice. Buttons seem to fall exactly where I need. There are some minor annoyances with customization (assigning ISO to a dial doesn't seem to work well, you can't switch between auto and manual using only the dial like you can on a Sony) or general behavior (why not give the option to stop down to the working aperture all the time instead of having to press a button), but overall it's a really nice camera to use, nicer than my Sony, maybe even much nicer. All that's left to review is the IQ, then . . .

I knew the OLPF would hurt the resolving of fine details, but it's a bit more than I expected on a 45mp sensor. Distant foliage is quite noticeably less detailed on the Canon than the Sony, and no amount of sharpening in post seems to improve it to the Sony's level of detail at base sharpening. I may be able to train myself to not be a pixel peeper, but I may not. If that were the only issue, I might be able to deal, but the lenses are also a step down. My current Sony zoom setup is the 16-35 GM (first version), 24-105 G (which as noted has been dropped on its head), and 70-200 G (first version). While I guess I shouldn't expect the UWA f4L to be as good as the GM, the difference is more pronounced than I expected. The GM is weakest at 35mm, and it's still better than the 14-35 anywhere in its range, across the frame. The 24-105L is an even bigger gap versus the Sony. The Sony isn't what I would call a stellar lens to begin with, but especially at the wide end, the corners on the Canon are just . . . not acceptable. Doesn't appear to be a centering issue, all corners are just suffering from astigmatism, and this is at f8. The 70-200's are mostly a draw, it's the only lens of the three that I would call on par with the Sony, and it may actually be a bit better.

So I'm not sure what to do. I'd rather not spring for the 2.8 versions of the wide and normal zooms and find out there's not much improvement, but I also really do like the R5. The other obvious option is an A7R5 and replace my dropped 24-105 G with something else, leaning towards the new 24-70 GM. I mostly shoot landscapes, and I appreciate the size and weight of the recent Sony lenses for packing on longer hikes or multiday excursions, plus the lack of an OLPF does seem to give a more pleasing file in the end, but I just don't love using the damn camera, and it's hard to know where to weight the decision. The more fun to use, pleasant camera, or the one with better IQ?...Show more →

If you’re unimpressed with the R5 IQ with those lenses… You could try the new 10-20mm which might be a bit better, or the 24-70mm RF for the midrange. Both should be better. You’ve been comparing lenses designed to be in Sony’s top pro stable to Canon’s mid-market “compromise” L lenses, and while the rendering should be great, the pixel peeping quality may not be there. But if you’re considering the big 2.8 lenses anyway, I’d encourage you to look into the GFX system. 20-35mm, 35-70mm, and 100-200mm are all optically great and relatively light. (I only have personal experience with the 35-70mm and the 23mm (reviews say the 20-35 is very comparable optically)). Nice advantage is going as wide as FF equivalents at 100MP but cropped to long end match 61MP FF views. I shoot dual system R5 and 100S. 900g vs 720g isn’t nothing if you’re hiking (body weights GFX, R5), but the 35-70mm is 300g lighter than the 24-105mm, the 20-35mm is only 40g more than your old GM, and the 100-200 is a bit lighter than the 70-200 2.8 options. The 100S is a fun camera to use IMO, and used prices are dipping a bit, but YMMV. I’ll say this… the cheap GF glass beat out Sigma 40mm for my resolution and rendering purposes, and the GF primes I’ve tried have blown away the best FF glass I’ve used in their ranges. No OLPF too.

Ultimately, it’s up to you if user experience or IQ matters more for your work. If you’re not printing large, I can’t imagine the R5 holding you back. But then, I’m not hauling your gear!

Nov 12, 2023 at 01:01 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.