I've been a long-time Canon shooter, back to the film days, then a Canon 10D, 20D, 5D, and 6D. I do mostly landscape work and some nightscapes. They've been great cameras, close to state of the art at their release, and frankly, I've never needed a single repair on any of them.
So, why the switch to a Sony a7 III? Did I benefit? What about lenses? Using the camera in the field in terms of design, ergonomics, and usability? It's complicated, but let me explain my progression, noting in advance that my experiences and reasons likely won't be the same as yours.
When evaluating cameras, most of us, myself included, look backwards. In my case, Canon always satisfied. It worked in poor weather, never corrupted a CF or SD card, autofocus was reliable, and my photos came out as intended, whether as single shots or sometimes, bracketed HDRs.
A couple of years ago, I took a trip up to Page, Arizona with another photographer who had just purchased a Sony a7R. I was prepared to tell him Canon was so reliable, why stray off (from Nikon in his case) to something untested and without the glorious history of Nikon or Canon. It was about the images and the size and weight of the camera he said, and I had to admit, his images were beautiful, in low light, at night, in the canyons with mixed lighting. I loved the dynamic range in difficult lighting conditions. I also noticed his enthusiasm about using the camera in the field.
I didn't succumb just then, but kept my eye on Sony. A year ago, I was seeing more and more rave reviews, this time for the Sony a7 III. It was less expensive, was purported to have great dynamic range, and there was a feeling that somehow Sony had learned a hell of about photography and image quality while adding features photographers wanted.
I also sensed that Canon was moving slowly, perhaps protecting its DSLR line. Firmware updates were more about bug fixes rather than adding new features. Sony, in contrast, was adding or improving features rapidly.
So, as far as I was concerned, looking backwards at my camera experiences with a particular brand was not the only way to evaluate buying a new camera. I tried to see how aggressive the camera brands were about new technology and where they were going in the future
For me, that was the moment of revelation. I liked where Sony was now (mirrorless, IBIS, dual SD card slots) and the easy ability to use my Canon glass using a Sigma MC-11 adapter.
I liked where Sony was heading with solid incremental improvements to their camera line. They acted like a company with something to prove, not a company that had already proved their worth and was relaxing.
I almost never buy the most expensive product from a manufacturer, settling on a middle ground that gives me the most bang for my buck, so pricewise, the a7 III fit right in.
After using the Sony for almost a year, I'm happy with my choice. My Canon lenses and my third party lenses have worked fine on the Sony a7 III, even my wide field Rokinon that I use for Milky Way photography. Here's the Sony fitted with my 14mm Canon mount Rokinon lens using the Sigma adapter.
I like the increase in dynamic range, and although the menus take some getting used to, I like the many customization options.
Sony has delivered firmware updates regularly, with new features and not just bug fixes. And the market seems to have validated the Sony camera as many pros and semi-pros have made the switch.
It's not, however, a decisive change. Most pros are sticking with their DSLRs out of familiarity and comfort. That makes sense, as any new technology tries to upset the status quo meets resistance. And, of course, there's nothing wrong with the image or build quality of the best of the Nikons and Canons. Still, Sony is winning over a lot of photographers.
Still, I feel that Nikon and Canon were too comfortable and were protecting their high end, rather than pouring R&D into new camera bodies and technology.
It's not productive to start the religious debates over cameras anew. That's not my intention. I'm just one photographer who made the switch, and I'm glad I did. It wasn't so much image quality or color science, but the a7 III satisfied me in those criteria. All the major companies have their fans and detractors. It was more a matter of my liking Sony's direction and aggressive stance. To many, the new Canon mirrorless entries have been less than overwhelming, and I think Canon needed but failed to get an early home run.
So, my main reasons for moving were:
- New camera (my Canon was 6+ years old)
- The Sony could use my Canon and third party Canon mount lenses (with a Sigma adaptor)
- Better dynamic range
- Faster focusing
- Better low light performance for my night work
- Lighter and smaller
- Better resolution (20 versus 24 mp)
I'm hoping that the more competitive the field becomes, all the manufacturers will step up and offer better technology at lower prices. I doubt the Sony will be my last camera. I'd like to see Nikon, Canon, and the others step up with even better products. And who knows who else might be out there to surprise us all with something with innovation and breathtaking image quality.
That is, probably unintended, extremely funny.
I don't see how someone is going to produce an adapter to attach Canon RF-mount lenses to Sony E-mount bodies. It would have to be 2mm thick and reduce a 54mm throat diameter to 46.1mm within that 2mm distance. Is that even possible?
Yes
You know this for a fact from an engineering standpoint or is it just conjecture? It doesn't seem like a whole lot of space to fit the required electronics and I wonder how the abrupt change in diameter would affect the coverage without some optic to correct for it.
I can’t think of many things I care less about than the camera someone uses, let alone their journey to getting it.
Yet, you read the article and commented on it. Are you sure you're being honest with yourself what you really care about?
I care not to see weekly sponsored content being paraded as authentic. Cameras really do not matter this much to have this many conversion stories every few days.
This article isn’t sponsored.
Do you receive ongoing sponsorship from Sony itself in any way? Anything I’m which you’d be motivated or pressured to to provide favorable coverage for them?
Anything indirect? Like extra commission form B&H or other affiliates for Sony products?
Nope, nothing.
You should really be cashing in on this then. Sony leads in one segment of professional photography (only full-frame mirrorless) and you publish articles every week making it sound like they've taken over the world. They owe you.
LOL. OH God - hell yes!
The problem with Canon innovation is their policy of introducing it three years after their competitors do.
Do you really think that today, there are shots that you can take with a Sony, that would be totally impossible to get with a Canon? Come on...
Yes, there are shots you can take on a Sony that are impossible on a Canon unless you use "tricks". The reason being the improved DR. You'd need HDR on the Canon to match the Sony. What does this mean? It means that for the same two images, where the Canon would display a completely black (assuming late evening shot) foreground, the Sony image would have detail.
I don't use tricks. If some details are not visible to the naked eye, I don't need to capture them. And nobody answered to me yet if Sony has a 600mm f/4 lens. Talking about things you can do with a camera and not the other.
I really like the look of my lydith. I like the focal length (30mm). I've had it since I started shooting film on my Praktica way waaaay back in the day. I can't use it on my canon because it fouls the mirror. I can use it on my Fuji walkaround camera, but it's cropped, or I have to put more glass in.
You want to shoot any full frame manual lens on your camera at 40+ megapixels? Then it has to be mirrorless and it has to be Sony. There is a Canon mirrorless, but frankly, I'm not splashing out near on 3,000 euros and forcing myself to use adaptors on all the canon lenses that I've acquired over the last two decades so I can get an extra 4 megapixels of resolution, which is round abut half the resolution of the competitor's product, which has been out for years already.
So yeah, the Canon hate is coming fast and furious. As it should. I'm a long time Canon shooter and I'm not feeling the love right now.
Not totally impossible but easier...The way I work there were some shots that my Canon could not easily produce but the Sony could. I shoot a lot of cars. Sometimes I need to cover a ton of little details like switches, knobs, buttons, readouts etc. After shooting the over all view I would get in the car to shoot like 20 shots. Being able to avoid using a tripod because of IBIS, super DR (no need to relight) the flip up LCD (I have a 5D2 I'd guess the 3 or 4 have that by now) and the wysiwyg from the EVF made things very easy. Just like going from Rz67 to Canon1D made things easier, going from 5D2 to Sony made things easier.
This is the same Android vs iPhone argument on every mobile phone forum on the internet. "LOL iPhone comes out with <feature XYZ> that Android has had for years!!" Yet which company is massively more profitable and provides the best general user experiences for the everyday person?
Just to be completely transparent: I use an Android phone, Windows personal desktop, and Mac as a work machine. I also use a mix of Canon DSLRs, Olympus M43, and a myriad of medium format film cameras. As Apple has proven time and time again, there's nothing wrong with introducing features later, as long as it's done well.
so are you saying the eos r was "done well"?
I haven't handled one long enough to make an informed opinion on that particular model. However we have a 5D Mark IV in the office which we use for all of our professional shoots and have had zero complaints with it, so if the biggest complaints that I've heard regarding the EOS R are true (the touchbar being an odd addition and it recycling a sensor) then it appears to be a perfectly well-done and capable camera, especially considering it's a first-gen product.
The same could also be said for the first-gen iPhone: lacking features such as 3G or a front-facing camera. But over time it evolved to be a fantastic product. How about we see how the RF and Z lineups turn out over time? They're effectively both in their infancy.
Just spent some time with a colleague who just got a R loner. said he doesn't understand why they didn't just make a mirrorless 5d mk 3/4. the touchbar is lame he said.
speaking of iphone back then it was a revolutionary product. canon and nikon are trying to sell an iphone 5 in an iphone x max world. explains why their stock is tanking. i wonder how much runway nikon has with crap like the z.
I've been using an R since last October. Shockingly, it takes great pictures.
i'm sure it does for certain situations. its glaring limitations have been expressed by every photographer i have met.
You could always start your own website that does nothing but praise Canon for every decision they make
I own Canon gear.
The first thing I do after I read a comment is to look at the portfolio of the author.
Your pictures are truly amazing!
The first thing I do after I read a comment is to consider the comment on its own merits. That's also the only thing I do.
Good, having different opinions is always positive!
I also believe that someone's comment is sustained by the work he produces.
If Ian Kruize says that gear doesn't matter, and Ian Kruize has a stunning portfolio, then I believe in what Ian Kruize said.
Good for you! But may I ask why all Sony shooters feel the need to brag about it on all photography websites? Oh and by the way, does Sony have a 600mm f/4 native lens?
Paid viral marketing. See NeoGAF, See DPR, see blu-Ray moneyhatting, see rootkit debacle. Sony’s marketing budget is not really going to tv ads, let’s say that.
This article was not sponsored.
I think you’ll notice I didn’t mention this published opinion piece at all, I was commenting on the vocal minority on the internet- commenters, redditors, forum trolls, etc. Sony absolutely uses social media plants, “new marketing” to spread FUD about competing brands and pays them in PS4 games, consumer electronics, and discounts, instead of just marketing their products directly and transparently. Russian troll farm styles... You’d think every pro was shooting Sony by the reality distortion field they disseminate, when in reality, it’s mostly advanced amateurs and gear switchers who chase paper specs instead of usability and final results. I shoot ~150 events a year (weddings, sports, concerts) and I see Sony less than canon and Nikon, and about the same as Fuji, maybe a bit more, and it’s mostly mid-budget videographers at that. Haven’t seen any Sony stills shooters at major sporting events. Most people I personally know who shoot Sony are aren’t getting paid, just looking for Instagram clout shooting TFP models and over-processed landscapes. A few of my fav wedding ‘togs shoot Sony, but I like them for their work/creativity, not necessarily the actual look of the files/processing.
My EOS Rs have been phenomenal in practice, each system has compromises, for my event work I prefer Canon. My take anywhere camera is an X-T2.
I also switch from Canon to Sony. Although what I've learned since then is when it comes to picking a camera, take a look at photos that inspire you. Read up on the trials and errors those photographers went through to get those images. Base your gear on those lessons.
So the A7 is better than a 6 year old entry level canon full frame? Who woulda thought.
The Sony A7III has better DR than any of the most current Canon offerings. The Sony sensors are simply significant better than Canon's offering. Why? Because the current Canon sensors are every bit as good as a 6 year old Canon full frame sensor.
On paper, the A73 has 0.9 more stops dynamic range than the EOS R, and only at low ISO. In reality, when you underexpose grossly in-camera and “fix” it in post, Sony sensors exhibit smudgy, ashy tonal transitions on skin tones and looks like burnt leather, and exhibits weird colour twists. The R, since 1.2 is pretty clean and skin isn’t weird smudgy brown-orange in shadows. Seeing Caucasian grooms with literal black hands on the shadowed small of a brides back... it’s ugly and rarely talked about.
Canon colour and tonality is a thing, raw isn’t raw, it’s been affected by the lens, the CFA, the camera’s processor (Sony raw polygons anyone?) and by the raw converter before you even touch the file. They are different.
Also, who’s underexposing 5 stops with a mirrorless camera/EVF?
I laugh out loud whenever I read responses from people who have zero photos in their portfolio to back up their claims. Gotta love it :) lol
I had a Sony a7R II for a couple weeks, got it used but the sensor was damaged so I had to return it. But my experience with the sigma adapter was that auto focus didn’t work very well on any of my Canon lenses. One day I was rushing out the door to work on a project with very limited time and I grabbed my Canon EOS RP instead of my Sony a7R II, knowing I wouldn’t have issues with autofocus. Do I have a bad adapter or something?
The A7Rii doesn’t have the focusing advances that the mark iii bodies have (a7iii a7riii). The sigma adapter (when fully updated) works incredibly well on the mark iii and a9 bodies. The mark ii bodies are great for the price, but if you’re looking for optimal AF performance gotta check out the iii
I would be hard pressed to argue with you if shooting night & landscapes are your thing. It’s smaller, more compact, easier to travel and carry, and as you observed the DR is superb. But for me as a wild life guy there are no real advantages. Still need long, heavy lenses which defeats the purpose and the Sony lenses cost more than Canon. Right now Nikon has that niche with better af and small, compact long lenses such as the 500 pf. Their only hole is a lack of a good 100-400 which canon and Sony have..
I own a Canon 7D, M50, snd Sony A6300. With that said, in response to this article:
1. Yes, Canon is 5+ years behind. My 3 year old Sony has superior video specs and 11 fps on still photos vs less on my Canon 7D and the new mirrorless Canon R is even slower, less than 6 fps. Canon, this totally unaceptable!
2. Be forwarned; the Sigma adaptor praised in this article for Sony cameras is useless on sports photography when using either my L series 70-200mm or L series 400mm. The autofocus just keeps hunting forcing me to go manual focus. Same goes when using the metabones adaptor. If you are thinking of jumping ship, going to a Sony body, bring all your lens in the camera shop, try them on the Sony body with the adaptor first.
3. Sony A7 III is super cheap for its specs but also consider Sony lens are more expensive so all things considered, not cheaper.
4. Sony menus and ergronomics are seriously bad. I really suggest you use one befire buying. It isnt just different, it flat out sucks and it matters in the field. In addition, no flip screen, poor and limited touch screen by Sony.
As far as Canon is behind in the latest camera specs, Sony is equally behind in ergronomics. Canon and Nikon have decades of feedback from professional photographers and it shows. In contrast, Sony is pushing the limits with camera specifications but it feels like they never bothered to get feedback from camera users in the field. I feel like Sony cameras were designed by electrical engineering geeks given a task my management to design a camera with better still photo and video specifications but no real photographers were involved in the camera design process.
5. I shoot surfing photography. The Sony body is smaller, more fps, quick autofocus with native Sony lens make it my go to camera shooting in the water with a water housing. My Canon 7D is superior as soon as you use Canon lens. I still use my Canon while shooting on land for sports photography abd due to superior ergronomics, prefer Canon in my hand so only use Sony in land when Canon body specs won't do the job.
At this point I am hoping Canon can improve their new mirrorless bodies. I need 120 fps video for slow motion, 10+ fps still photos, and sharp, fast, autofocus for stills and video. Neither Canon or Sony make a camera body that does all that with my lens. I am in the waiting mode. My hope, Canon makes a 2020 camera with 2020 specifications vs the 2019 Canon R , a $2700 camera with 2012 chip and 2012 specs to match and inferior spec wise to a $800 Sony camera body. Eventually I will need, not want a new camera body. If Canon cant get its act together I might be forced to jump ship meaning sell Canon lens off, switch brands. If that happens, Canon will not only lose the sell of a camera body, it looses sells of all future lens.
A side note: The Canon dual pixal autofocus is fantastic for video photography being able to touch screen to change focus from one subject to another.
My son is a wedding photographer. He was considering a switch from Canon to Sony, but he called me first to get my opinion since he knows I do a LOT of research when considering making any considerable purchase. I told him before he decides to go to the local camera store and actually take a look at a Sony. He was going to upgrade his 5DIIIs.
He did and ended up with a pair of 5DIVs. The in hand feel really put him off and going through the menus, the final nail was driven. Some of us consider ergonomics paramount. Certainly a subjective issue, but for me, a deal breaker. Doesn't matter to me a whit about the 'pluses' in Sony's favor if the camera feels like it came from Toys R Us.
"Still, I feel that Nikon and Canon were too comfortable and were protecting their high end, rather than pouring R&D into new camera bodies and technology."
This is simply wrong, or at the very least appealing to availability and confirmation biases. Look at the D850, D500 and previously the D800/e as examples. Look at all the recent lens innovations that Sony still doesn't have (e.g. diffractive optics). Oh and the Z6 and Z7 didn't just pop up out of nowhere. That was years of R&D.
Just another click bait Canon vs Sony article. I skimmed over it. Same reasons given by a different photographer. What's the point really? Shame Canon? Shame Canon users? Promote Sony? Yes, I saw the Not Sponsored comments by Alex. Another article that guarantees more clicks? Beating a dead horse in my opinion.
This has been a hot topic for the past 6 years. Canon is going to be Canon because all the shaming hasn't seemed to motivate them to change and it is costing them. As for Sony they can't keep up the "new innovation" pace forever. And if they did I can see, and have seen it already, where some are complaining "I just bought this for $XXXX a year ago and now here's a new version with a new feature that everyone is raving about." Kinda like smartphones. But like with them just skip a couple generations.
My point is that I like Fstoppers and I don't want to see it turn into what DPReview is. Click Bait and Troll Kingdom.
As for me I'm "currently" happy enough with my Canon gear. I would like to see them do better too but it's not worth it to me to selloff all my gear and change systems to any brand. If I did it wouldn't be because I feel "left behind", "shamed" or "brand trend".
And I certainly wouldn't write and post an article about it to advertise and brag that I did.
This loyalty thing is absurd, camera is a tool, if you can get a better tool, good. That's all. At the end you have to ask yourself, has my work gotten better with the switch? If not it doesn't really matter because it makes no difference.