As I noted, from a sports shooter perspective....how about Sony and there 300 2.8. Oh wait, they don't have one... jschn372 wrote:
About the only thing I can think of that Canon has that Sony doesn't are tilt shift lenses, and those can be adapted, as they are on the r5. Maybe f1.2 primes, but I don't use those, and how often do you actually need the 1.2 over 1.4? Sony also has the sigma 35 1.2, and the rest of their great mirrorless lenses as well as the tamrons, voigtlander, etc that aren't available on Canon. If anything, it's Sony that has the glass advantage, and it's by a lot
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. I think if we are being honest, Sony has some very very good glass. I think Canon as equally good glass and a heck of a lot more of it and and exponentially larger supply of used glass in the second hand market. And Canon has some very important glass that Sony just doesn't have and I think that is largely a one way road; Sony has very few if any pieces that Canon doesn't have. Pro Support goes to Canon by a long shot based on my experience with both (and not all of my CPS experience was perfect). Does Sony even have in house repair yet or do they still farm that out?
So yes, the r5 has me very curious and interested. If it is close to the a92 or a7r4 in AF performance, the other factors can change the equation on which is the better system.
And my thoughts are largely form a sports shooter perspective and some portrait work.
Aug 08, 2020 at 10:44 AM
Previous versions of timgangloff's message #15309624 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
