lightskyland wrote: timgangloff wrote:
I see a lot of nit picking the r5 and r6 here. But the body is only a part of the overall equation. For me, glass and pro support are critically important.
Sorry, Canon EF glass doesn't fit the Canon R5 and R6 without an adapter. With an adapter you can mount such glass on the Sony bodies as well (but most EF glass isn't worth adapting anyway since Sony E has better options).
In terms of actual native lenses Sony E-mount runs circles around Canon R mount. Close to 10x as many since Canon so foolishly decided to eschew third-party lenses.
Sorry, but Canon EF lenses adapted to a Canon R camera are not the same as Canon EF lenses adapted to a Sony camera. Canon obviously engineered the Canon EF lenses and knows everything about the lens protocols. So when they make an adapter there is no reverse engineering involved. In contrast when you adapt a Canon EF lens to a Sony camera whoever made the adapter has to reverse engineer the Canon protocols. This reverse engineering is never perfect and can interfere with the performance of the lens on Sony in a way that will never happen with the lens on a Canon camera where such reverse engineering does not occur. You simply can't equate the two types of adaptation. They are not the same.
If you simply count lenses without reverse engineering then there are actually way way more lenses available to Canon R cameras than there are to Sony cameras. The real issue is many Canon EF lenses are old and somewhat obsolete. If we discuss just modern lenses the two systems are competitive with some strengths and weaknesses for each system. I think it totally lacks nuance to describe one system as clearly have more lenses or clearly being better than the other rather than noting the strengths and weaknesses of each system. Sony has a lot of lenses available in shorter focal lengths that are modern and have high IQ. They have fast focus and some a quite small. Sony has a fantastic range of lenses for shorter focal lengths (Although they don't have some speciality lenses like tilt/shift). Sony's weakness is especially with fast longer lenses. They only have two, but these two are exceptionally good (but also exceptionally expensive).
In contrast Canon has good coverage of the shorter focal lengths including all the specialty lenses pretty much available, but some of these lenses are older and not designed for mirrorless AF. Consequently they will work as well or almost as well as they did on DSLRs, but won't work as well as some of the best new lenses for Sony. Canon also has a strength with long lenses, they have variety in focal lengths offered, aperture offered and in price point when you consider used lenses. With Sony if you want a long lens you have a choice between the very good, but slow, 100-400 and 200-600 or the uber expensive 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. Nothing in between. With Canon there are dozens of choice in between. They may not always be optimal, but if on Sony you can't afford a 400 f/2.8 (and face it not a lot of us can) it is quite a step down to the $2,500 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. Sure it is a great lens, but it still has a slow max aperture. On Canon you can spend $3,500 or so and get an older 400 f/2.8 and although it will be bigger and heavier and $1000 more, it is also 2 stops faster than what you can afford to get for Sony. So if you have $4,000 to spend on a fast long tele, you can see how Canon offers options that Sony does not. For some shooter that extra aperture will be very much welcome, and this same lens will almost certainly function better without reverse engineering on the Canon than it will with reverse engineering on the Sony.
Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17 AM
Previous versions of Steve Spencer's message #15309527 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
