Both are good cameras. If I were mainly a stills shooter, I might lean slightly towards the Sony. If I was more of a hybrid shooter (also shooting video), I might lean slightly towards the Canon. But both cameras can do both stills and video very well.
The question you should ask yourself is which lenses you're going to want to use. That's really all it comes down to.
Overall, I find Sony’s lens selection to be better. For example, the 28–70 mm f/2.0, especially when combined with the 50–150 mm f/2.0. Canon also lacks a truly fast ultra-wide-angle lens – the 14 mm f/1.8 is outstanding in this regard, particularly for Milky Way photography, auroras, or dark churches where tripods are not allowed. In addition, a 16–28 mm f/2.0 is expected to be released soon.
These are lenses that simply do not exist in Canon’s lineup and that I would genuinely miss. This is without even mentioning the much broader overall lens ecosystem at Sony, including options from Sigma and Tamron.
For that reason, it ultimately does not matter to me whether a Sony or Canon camera body is marginally better. If the lenses I want and rely on are not available, the manufacturer can offer as much as it wants – at that point, none of it really matters.
P.S.: The Canon 28–70 mm f/2.0 would personally be far too heavy for me. Weight and handling are factors I consciously take into account. One advantage of Sony is the shorter flange distance and the mount geometry optimized around it, which allows for more compact and lighter lens designs. This approach was long ridiculed, but Sony has clearly proven that it can still produce extremely fast lenses at a very high level.
You’d be better off posting in the Nikon and Fuji forums. Sony users will say Sony and Canon will say the Canon. Would be more interesting to hear from people with no investment.
jwpstl wrote:
You’d be better off posting in the Nikon and Fuji forums. Sony users will say Sony and Canon will say the Canon. Would be more interesting to hear from people with no investment.
Imagemaster wrote:
IF it was me making the decision the last thing I would worry about is choice of lenses.
I would be using a 100-400mm 95% of the time.
Would you be using the old EF 100-400 L lens on the Canon then? Or the cheap RF 100-400 f5.6-8? Canon also has an RF 100-500 and I'd probably pick that over the Sony 100-400.
I would compare the lens to Sony's version and decide based on which lens is better.
As I understand it, the Sony has the edge in dynamic range at low ISO, but only when using mechanical or electronic first curtain shutter. Switching to e-shutter cuts this advantage to less than half a stop, despite the Sony being able to capture in 14 bits. At ISO 800 and above they are mostly equivalent I believe.
This suggests that the Sony might be better suited for a landscape shooter than the Canon, although for that type of work people may well prefer higher resolution cameras from both brands.
For sports and action, which will mostly not happen at low ISO, the decision would probably be down to ergonomics and lens choice. I would argue that Canon wins the first, but that Sony wins the latter based simply on having a more open mount.
That said, you asked about shooting with a 100-400. I have no experience with the Sony glass, but both the EF 100-400 II and RF 100-500 are excellent lenses.
I say all this from a stills shooter perspective. I suspect the Canon may have the edge for a video or hybrid shooter based on reviews I have seen (and the availability of Canon's VCM and Z series lenses), but I am not an expert in that.
I think it's a tough choice overall, but one with no losers. From a camera body standpoint, I agree with what jaygould wrote, in that the Sony seems to be a slightly better stills body, whereas the Canon is slightly better at video. However, I'm sure either will do either wonderfully. From a lens standpoint, in the range of 100-400, Canon has two native options with the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 and the 100-400 f5.6-8. In this range Sony has their own 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and the Sigma 100-400 f5-6.3, so both brands have access to higher end, more expensive offerings and smaller, slower and less expensive ones. Looking again at the bodies, the R6iii is a bit faster at 40fps vs 30 and offers more robust video capabilities. The A7v has a clear advantage at low ISO dynamic range, Sony's pre-capture implementation is more flexible and most of what I've read suggests the battery life on the A7v to be notably better than the R6iii.
At the end of the day, I don't see a clear advantage for either system given your requirements. I'd buy the Sony because I shoot Sony and prefer the brand. I expect one who shoots Canon to go with the Canon. For someone coming to either brand from elsewhere, it'd be a tossup, unless there is some specific capability either the body or lenses offer, or if there are some other considerations than 100-400.
jaygould wrote:
Both are good cameras. If I were mainly a stills shooter, I might lean slightly towards the Sony. If I was more of a hybrid shooter (also shooting video), I might lean slightly towards the Canon. But both cameras can do both stills and video very well.
The question you should ask yourself is which lenses you're going to want to use. That's really all it comes down to.
---------------------------------------------
Stefan Official wrote:
Overall, I find Sony’s lens selection to be better. For example, the 28–70 mm f/2.0, especially when combined with the 50–150 mm f/2.0. Canon also lacks a truly fast ultra-wide-angle lens – the 14 mm f/1.8 is outstanding in this regard, particularly for Milky Way photography, auroras, or dark churches where tripods are not allowed. In addition, a 16–28 mm f/2.0 is expected to be released soon.
These are lenses that simply do not exist in Canon’s lineup and that I would genuinely miss. This is without even mentioning the much broader overall lens ecosystem at Sony, including options from Sigma and Tamron.
For that reason, it ultimately does not matter to me whether a Sony or Canon camera body is marginally better. If the lenses I want and rely on are not available, the manufacturer can offer as much as it wants – at that point, none of it really matters.
P.S.: The Canon 28–70 mm f/2.0 would personally be far too heavy for me. Weight and handling are factors I consciously take into account. One advantage of Sony is the shorter flange distance and the mount geometry optimized around it, which allows for more compact and lighter lens designs. This approach was long ridiculed, but Sony has clearly proven that it can still produce extremely fast lenses at a very high level....Show more →
I was locked step with you up until the last paragraph “P.S….” Which I totally disagree with. I shot Canon since then late 70s and just recently sold off all my Canon gear (was shooting dual platform with Sony since 2009). But decided I preferred the Sony ecosystem more, and it was becoming exhausting maintaining a dual platform.
Canon’s 28-70 F2, to my eyes and usage is a better lens in terms of rendering. I much preferred the look of the photos I got from it than from then Sony 28-70 F2 (which I obviously also own) — which is a fine lens as well.
I would choose the camera that mounts to my 100-400mm lens
Differences are not meaningful enough for anyone to change the ecosystem. Personally, as a Sony shooter, I am very pleased that Sony has put slightly more emphasis to stills than video (even though video is also very good).
The Canon RF 100–400mm F5.6–8 IS USM is clearly optically inferior to the Sony FE 100–400mm F4.5–5.6 GM OSS. It is a much simpler optical design and becomes very dark at the long end with an aperture of f/8.
A meaningful comparison to the Sony 100–400 GM would therefore not be the RF 100–400, but exclusively the Canon RF 100–500mm f/4.5–7.1 L IS USM. This lens is optically very good and operates at a high quality level. However, at 500mm it is also relatively slow, which partially offsets the advantage of the additional focal length.
At the same time, this means that if you are looking for a Canon lens that truly matches the Sony 100–400 GM in terms of optical quality, flexibility, and overall system options, there is essentially no real alternative beyond the RF 100–500 L.
With Sony, on the other hand, there is a significantly broader selection above the 100–400 GM. In the 500mm and 600mm range, there are not only Sony-native options, but also very strong alternatives from Sigma and Tamron.
I will skip a detailed list here, as the original question was later narrowed specifically to the 100–400mm range. In exactly this segment, Canon currently does not offer a truly equivalent alternative.
And that is exactly what I mean by Sony having the overall better and more coherent lens lineup. 😊
Stefan Official wrote:
At the same time, this means that if you are looking for a Canon lens that truly matches the Sony 100–400 GM in terms of optical quality, flexibility, and overall system options, there is essentially no real alternative beyond the RF 100–500 L.
The 100-500L is meant to be an improved alternative to the 100-400 mm choices of the past. The additional range means it's effectively like having a built-in TC.
That said, if we must limit ourselves to 100-400mm exclusively, the EF 100-400L II is still a completely viable option for a Canon shooter. It is excellent optically and works without performance loss on the latest Canon R bodies.
(I am not arguing that one brand is better than the other here, just making sure the discussion on the Canon side is complete.)
The Sony FE 100–400 mm GM is the newer, lighter, and optically more capable lens. In addition, there are strong indications that a GM II successor may not be too far away – the rumor mill has been quite active for some time now.
I personally used the Canon EF 100–400 mm L IS II for several years. It is not a bad lens, but from today’s perspective it is optically rather soft and overall not outstanding, especially when compared directly to more modern designs.
If the Canon were adapted to a Sony A7R V with 61 megapixels, it would no longer fully exploit the sensor’s potential. Its resolution and micro-contrast simply are not sufficient for such a high-resolution sensor.
This is not a subjective opinion – there are numerous tests, MTF measurements, and direct comparisons available online that clearly demonstrate this difference.
From my point of view, this raises a simple question: Why choose the Canon today when the Sony lens is more modern, lighter, and measurably more capable?
And to be fair: this thread is not about brand loyalty or personal feelings, but about technical data and optical performance.
I’d choose whichever brand of lens and/or body I already had and get on with my photography. Both brands make excellent gear, and the differences aren’t sufficient to give one up to move to the other.
Putting the spec list of both next to each other on TDP: they are virtually the same. The perhaps only important difference I could find is that the R63 has three buttons for back button AF, the Sony only two. The R63 takes 40 the Sony "only" 30 fps, the latter also mainly too fast.
That 100-400 limit is very limiting on the Canon side, RF 100-400 or one of the EF´s. With the adapter the EF v2, though good optically, is rather cumbersome.
Unless you can accept the 100-500, and/or really like a three button back. If that´s an "and" then R63 hands down. If the 100-500 is impossible and two buttons enough, perhaps the Sony with its new 100-400 would get your money. (Not mine. I really like my 100-500, and my RF 100-400 on the R10).
jaygould wrote:
Would you be using the old EF 100-400 L lens on the Canon then? Or the cheap RF 100-400 f5.6-8? Canon also has an RF 100-500 and I'd probably pick that over the Sony 100-400.
I would compare the lens to Sony's version and decide based on which lens is better.
I would use the EF 100-400 II because I have used it before and know how good it is without and with TC's.
Also the $500 Canon adapter that takes slide-in filters is very convenient.
I have also owned the Canon 100-500 and preferred the 100-400 even with the 1.4x TC.
Ltgk20 wrote:
Sony's pre-capture implementation is more flexible and most of what I've read suggests the battery life on the A7v to be notably better than the R6iii.
With the R6 III you can assign pre-capture to a button. Very handy and I don't thing doable with the Sony.
I'm pretty sure the A7v allows mapping pre-capture to a button as I have it mapped to my movie button on my A1ii (C1 on the A7v). To another post, about 2 buttons vs. 3, I'm also pretty sure C1, AF-On and AEL can all be assigned to back button focus.
