Jump to content

Image Quality - Sony A7 Mk II Vs. Canon 80D


Yeti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello!

 

A question haunting me: The Sony A7 Mk II offers 24mb resolution. I shoots birds and butterflies; even with a 400mm lens, very often I end up cropping the FF image to APS-C size or smaller; often I shoot in APS-C mode for 'perceived reach' that gets me a 10mb image file. How would that compare with using say the APS-C size Canon 80D (also 24mb)? Here I would have a non cropped 24mb file as compared with a similar Sony A7 cropped image which would be a 10mb file. Which would offer better image quality for making prints of size 20x30 inches?

 

Thanks so much!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thaz more or less how I do. Instead of cropping my 

24MP FF images I switch the lens to a 24MP APSC

body, so I have the cropping but not the loss of MP. 

I happen to use an E-mount APSC body. That way I

can use the same lens on both bodies. 

   

You would get the same effect using a Canon APSC  

body but I'm not sure if you're using adapted Canon 

lenses on your FF Sony. However you work it, you'd 

wanna be able to share lenses between the formats. 

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

  • Posts

    • Hmm that's pretty dreadful indeed... My 18-105 for sure is sharper than that. If I have time tomorrow I'll shoot an example with mine at 40mm f/8 side by side with the 16-55. Sold my kit lens when I bought the 18-105 so can't compare those anymore.
    • Thanks for the very useful information. The 16-55 tempts me, I can live with the absence of stabilisation, what holds me is the price tag. As always, there is not such a thing like a free lunch in life. The Sony gives performance at a reasonable size but with no stabilisation and higher price tag, the Zeiss is compact, stabilised and reasonably priced but lower performed, while the Tamron provides performance at very good price and stabilisation at the expense of bulkiness. 😀 All in all, I think I will give a try to the Tamron, once I have taken in my hands. Here are two cutouts taken close to the center of the picture. The sharper one is the kit zoom, the other is the 18-105 mm, at approximately the same lenght around 40 mm at /f 8. The difference is impressive and more impressive for me is that all the lenses in the shop had the same behaviour on two different cameras. At this point looks like a whole batch and not just a lens.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • That's a pity and certainly doesn't match with my experience with the 18-105: mine is definately on par with the 16-50 kit lens (which on its own was as decent as I could expect from such a cheap lens). Sure, dont expect sharp corners especially wide open, but in the center my 18-105 left little to be desired across most of the zoom range. The 16-55 does beat it in every regard except zoom range though. The Tamron 17-70 trades blows with the 16-55 and might be the better choice in some cases. I went for the 16-55 because of the smaller size (I also found the 18-105 too bulky most of the time) and slightly wider FoV. My camera has a stabilized sensor so stabilized optics was no requirement for me. As you noted, I kept the 18-105 on my old A6000 for the occasional video project.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...