Sony a7 or 6d

[royalakshay]

Hi ,

I am looking to buy a full frame camera getting confused which one is best

Canon 6d or Sony a7

Thanks

 

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

[Guest Colin Scott Johnson]

They are totally different.

If you get A7 II you get in-camera stabilization.

 

Personally, I couldn't get back into DSLRs after shooting Sony for a year

I didn't like the optical viewfinder and constantly having to chimp on the rear screen + use the rear screen for menu settings.

I wear reading glasses and this gets old quick in the field...

 

The Sony doesn't require lens micro adjustment either and is a lot easier to manual focus.

You get lots more information in the EVF and it's what you see from the lens perspective, not bounced off a mirror.

You get direct feedback to adjusting aperture or using exposure compensation in the EVF.

 

The Sony is also lighter if you pair it with a small lens.

The longest lens available for the Sony is the new 70-300.

 

Battery life sucks on the Sony but it's not "that" bad.

Just carry a spare and you are fine for most situations.

 

HTH

[Snowfun]

The correct answer to the question "which one is best?" is, I think, neither.

It depends what you are looking for. Both will take superb photographs - if you use them correctly!

There is a good argument for buying into the Canon lens system. But having said that, Sony lenses are excellent. Some will want to mention adapters but in my view why bother. If you're building a system then you can build it around one mount (I'm assuming you're not sitting on a pile of quality Nikon glass!)

Optical viewfinders are often said to be more intimate but I do not know what information you get (as above, it is a nuisance to have to look at a menu located elsewhere for key info). I find the EVF on my Sonys to be satisfactory and easy to use.

 

If the question had been 5div (sic) or A7ii then I'd (wait and) go with the Canon. Plenty would go A7ii.

Are you interested in video? A7ii is capable (although you'l need more than one spare battery!)

Is weight an issue?

Do friends/colleagues own one or the other?

Do you need low light performance?

(Why limit the decision to these two - ok, that doesn't help!)

 

I'd speculate that for the majority of photographers, the majority of the time, there's no discernible difference in the quality of the photos produced...

 

If possible, try before you buy... you'll quickly know which one feels right.

 

Enjoy whatever you decide!

[markphoto4u]

I shot with a Canon 6d for several months. As I recall I was not pleased with the focus on that body, and wished I had spent more and bought a 5D Mark ii. After selling the 6D I bought my first A7 and never looked back. I am a professional landscape photographer, and the A7ii is the perfect camera for me. Love the focus, in body stabilization, EV, and tilting screen. I also still enjoy using the Canon 17-40mm f/4, as well as glass and legacy glass. I agree that it depends on what kind of photography you are shooting, but it just rubbed me the wrong way that Canon would put a weak focus system in such a nice camera, and then apparently expect you to upgrade to a more expensive body for better focus.

 

 

markphoto4u

[Gilgenberg]

it depends

you gave not enough information´s 

[bwana]

They are totally different.

If you get A7 II you get in-camera stabilization.

 

Personally, I couldn't get back into DSLRs after shooting Sony for a year

I didn't like the optical viewfinder and constantly having to chimp on the rear screen + use the rear screen for menu settings.

I wear reading glasses and this gets old quick in the field...

 

The Sony doesn't require lens micro adjustment either and is a lot easier to manual focus.

You get lots more information in the EVF and it's what you see from the lens perspective, not bounced off a mirror.

You get direct feedback to adjusting aperture or using exposure compensation in the EVF.

 

The Sony is also lighter if you pair it with a small lens.

The longest lens available for the Sony is the new 70-300.

 

Battery life sucks on the Sony but it's not "that" bad.

Just carry a spare and you are fine for most situations.

 

HTH

I would pretty much agree with these comments.  I come from Canon and now have the Sony A7S, A7 II and A7R II...  Love them all for their particular strengths!

[yarmmcd]

Have you asked the same question in a canon forum? bet the reply's (if any) will be different!! 

[Trad]

Both great, I moved from 6d to a7ii, but I did that originally for manual focus glass, I struggled focussing with my MF lenses on the 6D. when Sony did the v2 firmware and I got AF on it, it was jam, now I shoot with either my AF lenses or MF lenses. It's a system you're buying into, big money, do your homework.

As I've said before, I haven't bought into the Sony FE lens system, my investment is in Canon AF lenses, and Contax Zeiss MF glass mainly. I adapt to the Sony body via Metabones IV and that has paid off for me, all my MF lenses are adapted to EF, so it's my common mount on a Sony system. This way should I ever migrate back to a canon body, my lenses do too.

See if you can try before you buy, I rented my a7ii and a Metabones adapter before I invested.

[Amfibius]

I have no hatred towards Canon nor am I biased towards Sony, despite selling up my Canon gear and moving to Sony. The biggest advantage that Canon have is the maturity of their system. Nobody disputes this, not even the people on this forum. They have lenses and accessories that Sony will probably never have, or MAY have in about 10 years or more.

 

Specifically, if these are your needs: long telephoto (birding, sports), tilt-shift (artistic, architecture), macro (Canon have a wider selection of macro lenses and flash) - Canon is for you. Also, some pros have said that both Canon and Nikon are more reliable, and are better for use in the field - because the cameras never freeze, have dual memory card slots, and the battery life is fantastic. Not so with Sony.

 

IMO if your needs are simple, everyday photography - Sony matches Canon and may even have the advantage. I jumped ship to Sony because of the small size of the body, the IBIS, and that insanely good sensor. Now i'm starting to miss the 5D3 a little - there's something about using a camera system for more than 20 years that returning to a Canon body seems like rediscovering a long lost friend.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

It very much depends on what, where, when and how you shoot and on your budget.

 

The best thing is to analyse your own reasons for buying a new camera. What is it that you are missing with your current camera and what do you want to do with the new one? Then find the camera system that best fits your needs.

 

I must emphasise the system part of choosing a camera. The availability and price of lenses and accessories such as flashes will affect you more in the long run than the specifications of the camera body.

 

I shot both Canon and Sony for a few years, until I sold my Canon gear. That was because I enjoyed using individual Sony cameras more than the Canons. But after a year I am missing the ease of using the Canon systems.

 

So my best advice is to picture yourself in a few years' time. What will you be shooting and what equipment will you need? Then get the system that fits your vision best.

 

 

Hi ,

I am looking to buy a full frame camera getting confused which one is best

Canon 6d or Sony a7

Thanks

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

[steve of stonehenge]

Some very interesting points here and I can't disagree with anything said.  I too wanted full frame and switched over from a Canon 70-D and several L lenses to Sony A7ii with a Metabones IV adapter.  I bought the Sony 55mm f1.8 and Sony 35 f2.8 lenses used on EBay.  The Canon glass with Metabones adapter was so-so: slow autofocus, and loss of lots of cool features not available on non-Sony glass.  Now with the new firmware on the A7 and Metabones, autofocus is fast and many of the lost features are available. Having owned both Sony and Canon I will say the Canon system is much more mature.  Great lens selection, and you can always find flashes compatible with Canon.  Not the case with Sony.  Lens selection for native Sony lenses is poor.  But there are some great Sony/Zeiss lenses currently available or soon to be available.  Having made the switch about a year ago, I'm very happy with my current kit.  The biggest advantage I see is a much lighter kit.  The second most important feature is in-camera stabilization with many (but not all) Sony cameras.  Canon, Nikon, and Sony all make great cameras and lenses.  I feel you could be very happy with an A7ii with 55mm f2.8 lens for a start.

[Golem]

SLRs are on the way out ... for good reason. For 50

years, basically since the intro of the auto iris, SLRs

WERE the most versatile small cameras. That was

then, and this is now.

 

Live view cameras are the replacement and the Sony

A7 series is currently the only full frame live view line. 

Regardless of format size, live view is more versatile. 

  

Live view has additional advantages in the smaller-

-than-24x36 formats. SLR body size does not shrink

much as the format shrinks from 24x36, but live view

camera size shrinks significantly. Sadly for SLRs, the

one area of an SLR that DOES shrink significantly as

the format shrinks is the SLR optical viewing system.

In live view designs the viewing system is completely

independent of format size. Tiny live view cameras

can have viewfinders equal to their largest siblings. 

  

The real question is: Do you have some special need

for the verrrry few things that an SLR can do but that,

as of this day or month, live view cameras don't offer ?

  

For nearly every user, the answer is: Nope. 

  

The details can be argued at great length but are also

changing faster than you can argue about them. The

big picture, at the moment, is that SLRs can run a lot

longer between battery changes, and some SLR lines

include the incredible "monster cameras" at the top of

their line-up. If you don't need a $6000 monster, and

if you can tolerate swapping out the battery every few

hundred frames, then you have no need of an SLR.

Therefore, skip the 6D and get the A7M2.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

SLR cameras will still be around by the time the OP wears out his 6D or A7. Mirrorless cameras are nowhere near replacing SLRs. So that should not be a factor when choosing camera, only which system works for you.

 

 

SLRs are on the way out ... for good reason. For 50

years, basically since the intro of the auto iris, SLRs

WERE the most versatile small cameras. That was

then, and this is now.

 

Live view cameras are the replacement and the Sony

A7 series is currently the only full frame live view line. 

Regardless of format size, live view is more versatile. 

  

Live view has additional advantages in the smaller-

-than-24x36 formats. SLR body size does not shrink

much as the format shrinks from 24x36, but live view

camera size shrinks significantly. Sadly for SLRs, the

one area of an SLR that DOES shrink significantly as

the format shrinks is the SLR optical viewing system.

In live view designs the viewing system is completely

independent of format size. Tiny live view cameras

can have viewfinders equal to their largest siblings. 

  

The real question is: Do you have some special need

for the verrrry few things that an SLR can do but that,

as of this day or month, live view cameras don't offer ?

  

For nearly every user, the answer is: Nope. 

  

The details can be argued at great length but are also

changing faster than you can argue about them. The

big picture, at the moment, is that SLRs can run a lot

longer between battery changes, and some SLR lines

include the incredible "monster cameras" at the top of

their line-up. If you don't need a $6000 monster, and

if you can tolerate swapping out the battery every few

hundred frames, then you have no need of an SLR.

Therefore, skip the 6D and get the A7M2.

[Golem]

SLR cameras will still be around by the time the OP wears out

his 6D or A7. Mirrorless cameras are nowhere near replacing SLRs.

So that should not be a factor when choosing camera, only which

system works for you.

   

Disagreed. It is very much a factor. When something is on

the way out, and something else is distinctly on the way in,

and especially when the OP implies that the user has no

entrenched habits nor in-depth experience, then the thing

on the way in is displacing what is on the way out because

in general usage the "new thing" is better at serving more

users' needs and preferences. That's the essence of things

that are on the way in, even if they have some ways to go

before accomplishing overwhelming majority market share.

  

You say "Mirrorless cameras are nowhere near replacing

SLRs". I have no disagreement. Quantitatively you're very

correct about what is in use. But trend-wise you become

less correct as the months tick by. Quantitatively you may

remain correct for dozens of months [maybe less], but an

historical fact is less relevant than a growing trend when a 

user is choosing where to turn next .... this month, this day,

this present moment .... for tools to serve needs he has not

yet even defined or discovered. 

 

The OP demonstrates no special need for the few special

features that favor an SLR, so why buy a ticket to sail on

the Titanic ?

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Canon and Nikon have millions of users with DSLR systems. They understand that it's not feasible to drop SLRs and go mirrorless, until you can put a SLR lens on a mirrorless body and get exactly the same functionality.

 

Sony went the other way, by ditching the SLR users and going flat out with mirrorless. So far they haven't produced a combination of bodies and lenses that equal DSLRs in performance.

 

So far Sony is the only company actively trying to replace DLSRs with mirrorless cameras. That has earned them a place as one of the smallest camera manufacturers in the business.

 

You're talking in terms of months for mirrorless to replace DSLRs, I say it'll be many years before mirrorless gets even close to DSLRs in terms of units sold.

 

 

Disagreed. It is very much a factor. When something is on

the way out, and something else is distinctly on the way in,

and especially when the OP implies that the user has no

entrenched habits nor in-depth experience, then the thing

on the way in is displacing what is on the way out because

in general usage the "new thing" is better at serving more

users' needs and preferences. That's the essence of things

that are on the way in, even if they have some ways to go

before accomplishing overwhelming majority market share.

  

You say "Mirrorless cameras are nowhere near replacing

SLRs". I have no disagreement. Quantitatively you're very

correct about what is in use. But trend-wise you become

less correct as the months tick by. Quantitatively you may

remain correct for dozens of months [maybe less], but an

historical fact is less relevant than a growing trend when a 

user is choosing where to turn next .... this month, this day,

this present moment .... for tools to serve needs he has not

yet even defined or discovered. 

 

The OP demonstrates no special need for the few special

features that favor an SLR, so why buy a ticket to sail on

the Titanic ?

[happypuppy]

I don't buy it. Sony Corp is so much larger than both Nikon and canon combined giving them massive advantages.

 

Canon is just now getting closer to Sony sensors performance. We all know Nikon and others get their sensors from Sony.

 

Canon and Nikon are trying to protect their markets by slowing the adoption of mirrorless. However it's as much as milking the upper market as much as they can while they are still able to do so.

 

They made much of their income from compact cameras and lost that to smartphones.

 

I had used Nikon since the early 70s and finally put my toes in the water with mirrorless.

Last year I parted with my fantastic D90 but it was long in the tooth and a dinosaur by today's offerings.

 

The big reason I jumped was my lens are still great on the mirrorless bodies but I am not stuck with old sensor tech.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Golem]

Canon and Nikon have millions of users with DSLR systems. They

understand that it's not feasible to drop SLRs and go mirrorless,

until you can put a SLR lens on a mirrorless body and get exactly

the same functionality.

 

 

   

OK. No problem. Reeeeaally no problem. Observe Sony's

A-mount evolution from DSLR to SLT using the same lens

mount. Now unchain your imagination .... remove the SLT

mirror from the A99, and switch to on-sensor AF pixels to

determine focus. This should not sprain the imagination. 

  

Your "not feasible .... until" is not awaiting some solution in

the future. There is no "until" here. It's already a done deal.

The only future development required is a decision in some

marketing department meeting.

[Golem]

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

 

You're talking in terms of months for mirrorless to replace

DSLRs, I say it'll be many years before mirrorless gets

even close to DSLRs in terms of units sold.

  

I will quote myself here .....  

 

 

 

Quantitatively you may remain correct for dozens

of months [maybe less],

   

You say "years" .... I say "dozens of months"   ....

Uhhmmnnn ..... Duh ?

[Golem]

I don't buy it. Sony Corp is so much larger than both Nikon

and canon combined giving them massive advantages.

 

 

   

Sorry about the formating going crazy but if you read

the below, you'll see that Canon and Sony are roughly

the same size. Sony profits are 27 billion, Canon profits

are 22 billion.

  

If you wanna see the reports properly formatted go to

the amigobulls site, from where I copied the text [but

lost the formatting].

  

Anywho, while 27 billion is 5 billion more than 22 billion

They are both near top of the same league. According

to amigobulls, Nikon profits are LESS THAN 5 billion.

As you posted, Sony is bigger than Canon and Nikon

combined. I just think you shoulda mentioned how very

lopsidedly small, barely significant, is Nikons slice of

the whole pie.   

   

From Amigobulls: 

    

  

Sony Corp Income Statement - Annual (NYSE:SNE)

 

Fiscal year is Apr - Mar.

2015

2014

Sony Corp Net Sales or Revenues 74.76B 77.67B

Cost Of Goods Sold (COGS) 48B 51.4B

Sony Corp Gross Profit 26.76B 26.27B

  

   

Canon Income Statement - Annual (NYSE:CAJ)

Fiscal year is Jan - Dec. 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010    

Canon Net Sales or Revenues

31.54B 35.41B 38.43B 43.5B 45.61B 45.76B    

Cost Of Goods Sold (COGS) 15.49B 17.72B 19.91B 22.87B 23.34B 23.75B    

Canon Gross Profit

16.06B 17.68B 18.52B 20.62B 22.27B 22.01B