Jump to content

Move from Canon EOS 5D MKII - which alpha?


Recommended Posts

I want to make the move from my full frame DSLR over to mirrorless. After being a happy owner of a RX100M3 for over a year I am convinced that Sony offers the best options for me over m4/3 and Fuji systems. However, I am stuck as to what to buy.

I like my 5D mkii but it has always had focussing issues - the well documented poor system of only 9 points, most of which are  single plane, leads to far too many out of focus shots leading me to have  to use more depth of field than I liked. The RX100M3 with its incredible eye focus has convinced me I don't need to put up with this and that Sony has a system that works in this regard. Other issues with the DSLR are the usual complaints about the weight of the system. If I use it with the 24-105L I'm carrying around 1.5kg of camera and lens around. Just too much for only 1 lens option. It's not exactly a subtle piece of equipment either. I do like the amount of control buttons though.

 

My preferred subject matter is landscape/travel photography (day or night) and family portraits - fidgety kids essentially.

 

On the alpha system I am looking forward to eye focus, better all round focussing, better DR, lighter kit in general, WYSIWYG feedback from the EVF etc. At first I thought the A7II would do but I've heard it's not always the fastest to focus and its tracking ability isn't great either. It is priced well though and I've seen incredible landscape shots taken with it but not so many kid photos. Other options are then the A7RII and the A6300.

 

A7RII is good but expensive ($4000+ in Australia). I also have little need for 42MP. The shots from it are outstanding though and I'm led to believe its tracking is pretty good although not top DSLR comparable (but then neither is the 5D mkii). I'd also find it easier to get shots with great bokeh. It also has a better albeit physically larger lens selection. 

 

The A6300 on the other hand comes in at a more palatable price point, is supposed to have excellent tracking and fast focus (great for kids), is more portable, has more compact although less extensive lens options (I'm ignoring FE lenses as you may as well have a FF body if you're going to use bigger glass anyway).

 

My conundrum is that I like portraits with great bokeh, a more portable system would get used more often rather than sit at home like the 5D, and the RX100 doesn't focus fast enough to be a portable foil to a larger camera and isn't good enough in lower light.

 

Options:

 

  1. A6300 16-50 kit, 55mm Zeiss, 16-70 Zeiss
  2. A7II, 16-35 or 24-70, 55mm Zeiss
  3. A7RII, 16-35 or 24-70, 55mm Zeiss

Not everything in each option would be bought straight up and there is a fair difference in price between option 3 and other options. 

 

Has anyone made a similar move and can you recommend what would be the best way to go? There's no availability of any of the above at the moment after the Japan quake so no hurry and, unfortunately, there's nowhere here that will hire any of these models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a 5D Mk-II outfit gathering dust cuz I've   

found the a7 Mk-II to be a more-than-equivalent 

replacement. YMMV. 

  

I also love my a6000 but I don't consider it to be 

my replacement for the 5D Mk-II. I'm not familiar

with most of the lenses you mention, except for

the 16-50, which I use ONLY at 16mm. If I need

a midrange zoom on it, I use the 18-55, cuz the

power zoom on the 16-50 is annoying. Acoarst

using it only at 16mm it's very compact, and I'm

not using the power zoom :-) 

  

If you're accustomed to power zoom, the 16-50

offers you a slightly wider view and much more

compact package than the 18-55.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Golem. I guess my only hesitation around an A7 II would be the relative age of the camera at coming up for 2 years old relative to the A7R2 and the A6300 given the more rapid Sony development cycle.

 

Would you be able to highlight a few things that have stood out for you coming from a 5D MkII with the Sony?

Link to post
Share on other sites

..............................

Would you be able to highlight a few things that have stood out

for you coming from a 5D MkII with the Sony?

   

Manual focus on any modern SLR is semi-useless unless

you can install an option real focusing screen, which I did

but the a7-2 has terrific magnified digital image focusing

that allows ABSOLUTE focus. The 5D-2's optional screen

just improves it's ability to APPROXIMATE focus.

 

I have a 90 degree viewing elbow for the Canon but the

a7-2 has a flip-up LCD screen, waaaaay betterer :-)  

  

The 5D-2 is not known for state of the art AF, so despite

any complaints about the performance of a7-2 AF it's at

at least equal to the 5D-2. I have no AF lenses that use

the AF built into the a7-2. I use A-mount lenses on an AF

[sLT] adapter.  

  

If you use the live view feature of the 5D-2, you're using

a ridiculously almost hopelessly crude version of an a7-2.

But if you want accurate focus from an SLR the live view

feature is the only way.

  

An a7-2 is a live view camera so it more or less "sees-in-

the-dark" so it has much better low light viewing than any

SLR. Even if it's grainy and jumpy, at least you can see

what would be nearly invisible in an SLR. 

  

The imaging in the Sony is better. Period. But in low light

it goes beyond "Period". High ISO noise from the 5D-2 is

quite blotchy, uglee, and hard to ignore. High ISO noise

from the Sony is not blotchy, therefore less obvious and

less uglee. 

   

On a bright sunny day at a modest ISO there will be very

little difference in the images. That's not news, right ? But

the Sony shooter will have a bigger smile on his face ;-)  

  

There's more benefits but, to me, that's the highlights. To

be fair, the 2 glaring deficiencies of a Sony are battery life

and a system that is far from complete. By complete, in

no way do I think the Sony system needs to resemble the

insane 180 lens systems of the major SLRs, but even as

a tidier system similar to Leica, the Sony system is patchy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Which Alpha" ? ......  

  

Whichever one you want, but concerning "user expectations": 

  

An Alpha 7-II series is what it is. If you opt for the "R" or "S"

version at about $3000 just realize that it's a $1600 a7-II with

a [possibly very over-priced] upgraded sensor and a few nice

firmware touches that Sony refuses to offer on the basic a7-II,

obviously to justify overpricing the 2 hotrod versions. 

 

IOW it's an enthusiast level $1600 camera body. Even if you

pay $3000 it don't compare it to some other $3000 camera if

that other $3000 camera is the foundation model of its type.

The foundation model Sony a7-II is $1600.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually need the FF 35mm format ? 

  

APSC is amazing. I love my a6000. It gets a 

lot more use than my FF Sony. And it's not

a different type of use. I have no motivation

to shoot "snapshots". The whole reason I'm

involved with FF is to use a large collection 

of film era lenses. An exceptional difference

is that my FF Sony happens to have IBIS so

it's OK that my old lenses lack OSS, IS, VR

or whatever anyone chooses to call it. But if

I had no old lenses I'd most likely stick with  

APSC, and only the stabilized APSC lenses.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think that the A6300 is the model I'll go for over the A7II (unless they bring out an improved III in the next few months as availability of all models is sparse here due to quake issue) due to its compact size - camera you have with you and all that. If I like it and feel it isn't enough in time then I can always move to the FF. My only concern is the quality and range of the glass for APS-C although the 16-70 on the A6300 is meant to be as good as the 24-105L on the 5D MKII and far more portable - 700g vs 1.6kg. It barely weighs the same as just the lens of my current camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good choice. Wasabi batteries from Blue Nook

are $30 a pair, and each pair comes with a dual

source charger [AC mains and 12V auto]. Get

two pair. Including the Sony battery, you'll have

five batteries on hand and can charge 2 or 3 at

a time. If you buy your a6300 in a bundle which

happens to include a spare battery, you'll have

six on hand. This is NOT overkill with Sony :-)  

  

Another reason to get two pair of Wasabis even

if you receive a spare battery in a bundle and so

are tempted to settle on a total of four batteries

by ordering only one Wasabi pair: If you order

only one, you will have fewer chargers and then

be tempted to charge batteries in the camera as

well as by outboard charger. Not recommended.  

Every now and then someone posts to ask how

to remove a battery that swelled up in charging

and is now jammed inside their camera. It's an

unnecessary risk. And anywho, charging times

for in-camera charging are much slower.  

 

In the opening paragraph above I mention you

"can charge 2 or 3 at a time." "3 at a time" does

include in-camera charging, so I'd recommend

on two at a time, using only outboard chargers.

I feel safe topping up a battery in-camera, but I

avoid lengthy charging of a well-drained battery  

via in-camera method.

  

Now you know about batteries. Thaz half of all

you need to know about Sonys !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

All great points above.  You say that "My conundrum is that I like portraits with great bokeh."  Ignoring the debate for the moment about the relative importance of "great bokeh," I will assume what you really want is the ability to isolate your portrait subjects.  And my only comment here is that you can achieve greater subject isolation with a full frame Sony body than with the A6300 or other APS-C body.  I have the A6300 and love it, particularly for sports / action photography.  I also have the A7Rii which I greatly prefer for portraits and landscapes; as Golem notes the A7ii is fantastic as well and could certainly meet you needs. 

 

So, depending on how important portraits are for you, you might consider going with the A7ii plus one of the following:

 

1.  24-70 2.8 GM

2.  35 1.4 FE and 85 1.8 Batis 

3.  55 1.8 FE and 85 1.8 Batis

 

Good to have such choices!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the problem for me is that nothing is jumping out immediately and saying "this is the must have". I had a kid's event at the weekend and lugged the existing kit. Backpack with camera, two lenses and a flash (in case fill was required). Got a couple of great shots but...1) Focus peaking would have highlighted a DoF issue in a portrait shot, 2) carrying 2+kg of kit around all day was no fun. In hindsight an A6300 with 16-70 would have covered my needs (with inbuilt flash too) albeit sacrificing some subject separation which ironically messed the photo up in this instance.

 

My reservations about the A7II are that, whilst it has in body stabilisation and a full frame sensor, its focussing when movement occurs is somewhat lacking when compared to the A6300 although you gain in the bokeh and sensor sensitivity departments. I also worry about the size of the bundle you carry even though it will be less than DSLR standards, the lenses do seem to be putting on weight. At the current time I feel the A7II is too lacking, the A7R2 just way too pricey, and the A6300 the compromise that may walk off with the title. Once the models become available again over the next month or so I'm going to need to do some testing of likely setups - unfortunately no rentals here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that lots of good points made here.

 

I made the switch from Canon 70D (24MP and APS-C sensor) to Sony A7 II in May of last year.  I have been really happy with the switch.  Several key differences:

  • Full frame versus cropped something I had wanted for some time.
  • Really accurate manual focus with magnification.  You can get 11X magnification to guarantee very good focus.
  • Ability to use virtually any lens with an adapter.  And there have been some really nice firmware upgrades recently that improves use of non-Sony lenses.  I wish I had not sold my Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II now.  But Sony version G Master has excellent ratings.
  • Many, many more focus points on the sensor.
  • And most important to me is the lighter weight and smaller size.  For travel this make a huge difference.

Now that I have moved up to full frame, I can't see that anyone would be happier going back to cropped.  The A6300 was not available when I got my A7 II, but I would still get the A7 II now versus the A6300 unless your budget is really tight.  The extra cost of A7 R II versus the A7 II is not a good value in my view.

 

As for lenses, get a good adapter (like Metabones IV) and use your Canon lenses for a while.  I love my Sony and Zeiss lenses, but Canon glass (especially L glass) is high quality.  I still use (and love) my Canon 70-200 f4 L IS lens with the Metabones IV adapter.  My favorite lens I use is the Sony Zeiss 55 f1.8.  Great quality and much less expensive than some of the other options out there.  One feature that I love with Sony lenses is eye auto focus.  And face recognition is also pretty cool.  When shooting kids, these features are very useful.

 

The only downside to a switch is shorter battery life.  But extra batteries are pretty cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest Jaf-Photo

Hungry Horse, I think a move to Sony mirrorless could work for you. To achieve what you want you will have to prioritise autofocus and lenses. Doing landscape, action shots and shallow dof portraits does require some good gear.

 

Cost seems to be a factor, otherwise you would have gone straight for A7R2 with GM lenses. I don't see full frame as being necessary to achieve your objectives, either. Therefore I would suggest going with A6300 and spending on the lenses. This being Sony, they come at a premium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took an SD card into a local photo store to have a test as they had some new stock in (briefly). One thing I noticed when trying the A7II and the A6300 is that the EVF on the A6300 was nicer to use by a long way. I guess that's what a couple of years in tech will do. I got the feel I could use it all day long whereas the one on the A7II I found to be irritating, almost like looking at an old TV vs a new one. Irrespective of pixel count it just wasn't as nice. 

For my test shots I used the FE55 F1.8 Zeiss lens as this would be my most likely one for portraits outside of sticking my 70-200 on an adaptor. Whilst there was the DoF difference as expected in real world use I don't believe it to be big enough to be an overriding factor from what I have observed. In the sample shots I took the A6300 was better at nailing focus especially with a non-centred focal point. I found the A7II to be awkward with some of its extra controls - principally the rear control wheel which involves pushing your thumb around near your eye when framing a shot. I see why they have one in order to offer the controls of a DSLR but the large body of a DSLR puts the controls further away from your eye. The centrally located EVF becomes an ergonomic issue for me that the A6300 avoids by placing over to the left. I also felt that the A6300 was a camera I could stomach carrying around a lot more than the A7II which, whilst lighter than my DSLR, loses a lot of the size appeal when you start using larger, better quality lenses.

 

The reason I have now not considered the A7R2 is that I feel the AU$4000 asking price is too rich for what is on offer. If it were AU$2500-3000, then maybe. I don't need 42MP, and while it does have great DR and native ISO, it lacks useful controls like the joystick found on a DSLR and I don't believe it to be as near as rugged. For that price I want something that won't break if handled roughly. The startup time also irks me for that price point whereas I can tolerate it on the A6300.

As for GM glass, for the price and weight I feel I gain nothing over full frame DSLR glass that I already have (or could add) - I could just get a 5DS and chiro coverage on my health insurance :)

 

Unless there's something new that forces its way into the conversation announced early for photokina I'm likely to go with the A6300 16-50 kit + metabones IV which will keep me covered until I can afford to add some natives like the 10-18, 16-70 and FE55. If an A7III were to come out with more advanced focussing, existing IBIS, and a better sensor (although that spec would likely cut the grass of the A7RII even if limited to 24MP) then this might change.

From what I've seen the A6300 has the drop on the A7II which is showing its age like a middle-aged man at a disco - albeit a well dressed one.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

Sounds very reasonable. The Canon/Metabones is a tie-over. It will work but it will also counteract the speed and agility of the A6300. To use that camera as it was intended, it's recent native Sony glass. That's where the cost of the system comes in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I moved from the Canon 5D mark II to the Sony a7rII. With the Canon I used the 24-105 F4L as the walk around lens. With Sony it is the 24-70 F2.8GM which is slightly lighter kit (not much). Don't discount the 42mp, you will be pleasantly surprised by what you can do with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I moved from Canon 5D MK III to the Sony A7 R II. I am euphoric... since I use Sony lenses. For the portrait work with shallow DoP that you probably want to do too, the Eye AF feature is awesome.

 

Initially, my hope was that would be able to continue using my Canon L lenses with the Metabones IV. Set to advanced mode it even allows for eye af. But I quickly found that the AF speed was not usable for me. In most situations, the lenses would hunt around like crazy.

 

Then I invested in the 24-70 f/2.8 G Master. All problems solved. AF and even Eye AF are working like a charm. Very reliable.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Just to complete the posting, I ended up buying the A6300 with kit lens. I then got the 50mm f1.8 (not the newer FE model) in a sale for less than AU$280. I also picked up the 70-200 f4 Sony to get a native telephoto rather than use my Canon on an adaptor. I am very pleased with the results. I may get a full-frame at some point but the A6300 has been a revelation - so many shots with nailed focussing vs the 5D MKII, especially the eye AF in portraits. Action shots with the 70-200 have been exceptional compared to the old kit. The 16-50 is also surprisingly capable for what it is and I have made some nice panoramics with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too switched from Canon to Sony and have A7Rii and A6000.  By the way my go to camera, however, is the RX10 which I bought for $400 on Ebay used.  Zeiss optics, 2.8 aperture, and perfect general zoom range.

 

I too found the 70-200 F4 a marvelous lens, great color and sharpness (and way lighter compared to my Canon 70-200 2.8).  At some point you might consider the Sigma primes..I use my tiny 19mm all the time...cheap, sharp,  and great value.

Fortunately my Canon 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 work beautifully with an adapter.  Additional lenses I use frequently and all are superb in their own way are the Zeiss 35mm 2.8, Sony 28 2.0, Sony 90mm macro.  My favorite lens, however, is the extremely fine (but very expensive and heavy) 50mm 1.4 (got rid of my 50mm FE version and Zeiss Sony 55 1.8 to offset expense and in my case well worth it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...