Jump to content

Considering moving to Sony


Recommended Posts

I have been a Fuji and Canon shooter for a while now. Fuji for street and landscapes mostly and wildlife with Canon. The new Sony a7III or riii are tempting me to switch. The one thing I really like about the Fuji cameras are the old style buttons. I find it more intuitive than menus. But I could give that up for a better system. I do regularly print my work at sizes of 30x40 and up so the larger sensor sounds nice. I have never actually had anything larger than an aps-c so I don't know how big of a difference it makes. The only thing that concerns me is that a lot of people don't like full frame cameras because the crop factor gets you closer but to me it seems like manually cropping is a simple fix. I shoot mostly street, landscapes, and wildlife with a an X-T2 and 7D Mark II. Has anyone made switch from Fuji/Canon and found the Sony to be a better option? I probably won't do it for a while since my current cameras are good for now but when I next decide to upgrade it might be the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sensor size has no effect on the size of the image that you will create as an end product.  Pixel count does. Pixel size will have an effect on its light gathering ability. The RIII does have something like 42 megapixels which may be great for your needs. There will be a lot of room for cropping with the RIII however like all cameras cropping also increases the size of noise and lens inperfections

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you’re saying about sensor size not making a difference by itself but if the pixel count is the same, wouldn’t a full frame sensor produce better reproduction at large scale than an aps-c size sensor? It seems to me that if the original size being captured is larger that reproduction quality would go up. 

When you say tha cropping has its issues I understand that, but my aps-c sensor crops automatically. Would an image captured with the same focal length on a full frame sensor cropped to aps-c size be different from taking it with an aps-c originally, assuming the sensor is the same other than size?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What attracts me to Sony is a combination of things that would allow me to utilize one system. Fast AF for bird photography, which is the main reason I still have Canon gear. Faster low light AF. For landscapes, full frame would allow me to use wider angle lenses and actually use them as wider without a crop factor. IBIS is something I’ve never had before. And higher quality large reproductions.  Would the Sony system offer an upgrade and solve these things for me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, if it’s not going to do anything better then it doesn’t seem like a smart move. I’m not looking for something “different” unless it is an improvement. From everything I’ve read it sounds like an upgrade but maybe I’ve been misreading the reviews. The “different” has actually sounded like a negative in terms of the menu system and that sort of thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, jimmy986 said:

Hmmmm, if it’s not going to do anything better then it

doesn’t seem like a smart move. I’m not looking for

something “different” unless it is an improvement. From

everything I’ve read it sounds like an upgrade but maybe

I’ve been misreading the reviews. The “different” has

actually sounded like a negative in terms of the menu

system and that sort of thing. 

I did NOT mean "different" as an understated negative remark. 

If that difference were to better suit the needs of a given user, 

THEN it's an upgrade for such a user. If one switches from a 

Canon Rebel to a Canon 5D3 or 5D4, then THAT is an upgrade, 

cuz they are not so much DIFFERENT from each other as just 

that the Rebel is a far lesser version of the same concept as 

the 5D3/4. OTOH, the Sony live view cameras, which come in 

greater and lesser versions within the Sony line, are very much 

different, as a complete line, compared to SLRs. A live view 

camera is an upgrade to an SLR only if it suits YOU better, but

NOT simply for it's being a later technological development.  

If the latter held true, then an i-Phone, being a later type of 

device, would be an upgrade from a Canon 5D4 ! 

Edited by Username
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

I think you would see an improvement in terms of autofocus and image quality over both your cameras. That is, provided you buy the good Sony lenses (G or GM).

That means to see a real advantage you'll have to invest in the order of 10K+ ($/€).

I would definitely advise against keeping the old Canon lenses and using them adapted. That'll just cripple the camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jaf-Photo said:

I think you would see an improvement in terms of autofocus and image quality over both your cameras. That is, provided you buy the good Sony lenses (G or GM).

That means to see a real advantage you'll have to invest in the order of 10K+ ($/€).

I would definitely advise against keeping the old Canon lenses and using them adapted. That'll just cripple the camera.

Absolutely agree....with time I gradually sold virtually all my Canon glass (including several high end L pieces) and replaced them with native equivalents.  As an aside, a couple of Sigma  Canon mount lenses lasted the longest, only my 18-35 1.8 Sigma remains.  In each case I had no remorse in the switch from Canon to Sony E mount glass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With what I shoot, would you recommend the a7RIII or the a7III as being good enough? I think what I would probably do is sell my canon gear and then buy a sony with a long lens for bird photography and wide angle for landscapes. The Fuji is good enough for now. I use it a lot for just the "fun" stuff. Street photography, I have an old x-pro1 IR converted, so they double for that body. So the investment wouldn't have to come all at once.

Thoughts on where to start looking in terms of which body and which lenses if that's what I would end up doing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'm willing to jump up that much. The most expensive camera I have purchased so far was like $1799. The a9 is probably more than I am willing to spend. I'm not sure I can justify that. BUT, I guess if I would buy it used it is only a couple hundred dollars more than the a7R iii. It doesn't have as many pixels though. Photography has been more of a hobby for me. With the money I make from it, I am probably just about paying for the equipment I use. I would like to try and increase that as time goes on but most of that money I do make comes from print sales so printing larger at better quality is important.

 

The a9 isn't something I have considered because the a7s have been getting so many good reviews that those seemed like the two to choose from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

Fair comment. If higher resolution is your first priority, I think you'll do well enough with the A7RIII. 

The A7SIII isn't out yet but it's reasonable to assume it won't beat the others in terms of resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolution isn't the only issue for me but it is big. AF is important, especially in low light. I am not too concerned with the FPS. My 7d mark II is 10 FPS which is what the a7riii is. I haven't felt let down by my 7d but maybe I would like the faster frame rate. Is the AF that much better on the a9 than the a7's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

Definitely better than the current A7S cameras. It also beats the A7III with a similar af system due to higher internal processing speeds. Sony has been packing the third generation A7 cameras with good features and performance, so if you're interested it's a good idea to wait until all three are out to compare them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 100-400 is definitely something I would be interested in unless there is a less expensive option. If I do switch, I would probably buy one tele for wildlife and one wide angle for landscapes and use the fuji for my street and the middle options for now. Any other options for tele that I should consider? What about a great landscape lens? I use primes with fuji but I am considering going to zooms both to travel with less gear and have more options, assuming quality and speed doesn't degrade too much over primes. I can also save some money by going with a MF option from Samyang or something similar as I never us AF for landscapes, unless a Sony Zoom would double as a good travel lens and landscape, which should save me money and space when traveling.

In terms of the 3 camera models, if I decide to switch it looks like the a9 and a7III have better AF but the a7riii would have better image quality when blowing up images. Would that be the short version of it?

Edited by jimmy986
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jimmy986 said:

 

In terms of the 3 camera models, if I decide to switch it looks like the a9 and a7III have better AF but the a7riii would have better image quality when blowing up images. Would that be the short version of it?

Part of it...I sold my A7rII replacing it with the A7III because for my needs I didn't use the 42MP of the R camera.  I really enjoy the A7III more than the other model...little things that make it a more enjoyable tool for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tinplater said:

Part of it...I sold my A7rII replacing it with the A7III because for my needs I didn't use the 42MP of the R camera.  I really enjoy the A7III more than the other model...little things that make it a more enjoyable tool for me. 

When you say your needs didn't require the 42 mp, where do you think the line gets drawn? I have never had a full frame or anything with more than the 24 of the x-t2. I know the number of mp isn't the only question since both of my cameras are moving to a different brand so it may not be apples to apples.  So I don't necessarily know whether I would see the benefit. Low light AF and AF speed in general could outweigh more MP for sure. And along with low light AF, good performance at high ISO is important.

What makes the a7III more enjoyable for you.

I'm trying to decide two things right now. First, whether the Sony system could better replace my current two system line up of Canon and Fuji. Secondly, if so, which Sony would best serve me. SO it's a little bit of a two parter that I'm working through,

Edited by jimmy986
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

Sony has brilliant tech but not all Sony cameras are equal. They tend to spread features across their camera line to differentiate them. So, quite a few Sony users have different bodies for different uses. 

Sony's AF is generally good but it varies. For instance, the A9 is the only FF camera capable of shooting sports at the professional level. Well, A99II is too, but that's a different system.

So, one option is to get different cameras for different uses, even considering the APS-C option.

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...