The one feature of the latest Sony A7 series that I think I envy is (possibly) better AF accuracy: increased AF points, area covered, and on sensor focus vs my 51pt Nikon. On the other hand, one advantage you have is that the Canon to Sony AF adapter is supposed to work fairly well, so maybe your lenses could continue to be useful, but AF likely would not be as fast. If I had an extensive Canon rig, I think I would wait for Canon to expand its mirrorless system. But I am sticking with Nikon for serious work and waiting for Nikon future products. Its fine in the normal flow of things, and coupled with some small older rangefinder lenses, makes a great travel kit for casual photography. Maybe it is because I am not as used to it, but the Sony seems to sense when I am in a hurry, and balks then. My Nikons almost always seem ready to respond to what I want, and deliver predictably. I have an extensive Nikon system, and one Sony A7 original version with a few FE lenses. I certainly won't switch for "hype and branding" there has to be a real advantage for me to consider such a rather expensive move. Since I am quite content with what I currently have, I have no problem taking a "wait and see" approach. Both have their pluses and minuses for the time being, I still prefer optical YMMV.įWIW, I do believe that before the end of this year, both Nikon and Canon will have their own full-frame mirrorless systems revealed. One of the main differences is that between using an optical vs an electronic viewfinder. That could change if Sony decides to bring the A9 technology into an APS-C body. For DX/APS-C - which I use for airshow and avian photography - I rather stick with the Nikon D500, 80-400, and 200-500 lenses than dealing with the too small Sony APS mirrorless bodies and their only lens suitable for that kind of photography, the 100-400. For me, I could easily see me replacing my Nikon FX system with one based on the Sony A7R III the lenses I would need for landscape/travel are all available from Sony and of excellent quality to boot I would shed some weight from the pack. It all depends on what you are shooting and what your priorities are. Number 1 & 2 are important to me, so I hope this forum can offer clarity to this. I feel moving with the times is important which led me to consider mirrorless cameras and I do not understand why Canon has not jumped into mirrorless Full Frame technology sooner. Can anyone moving from Canon to Sony confirm a weight difference? I know Sony bodies are much smaller and lighter, but when the lenses are added on - they look the same size as DSLRs. If I create a custom button on the Sony a7r iii and a7 iii will I have to jump through an extra hoop to get to this function? This is kind of a deal breaker. Once more, the Sony a6000 is very slow to move from point to point, whereas Canon's is very fast. I have a Sony a6000 (used as a 'take with me everywhere cam') but I find it frustrating having to create a custom setting for the custom button, then having to select the option I want from another set of buttons to get to manual focus points. In the middle of chaos, it is handy having a back button dedicated to a quick selection of focus points when people are running and/or quickly moving. Will Sony stand up to the same environments? I know all manufacturers will not offer guarantees but does anyone have experience working in similar conditions? It works well in the rain (although I try to avoid this) and it has been bashed through travel to come out working fine. I have taken my Canon 5D Mark IV out into freezing (-17c) conditions with no issues at all. My work is in news (online and print) and the following features are imperative for me to have. However, there are some things that frighten me off the switch. I am considering switching to Sony from Canon (mostly due to Canon's high price points, slow progress and lack of innovation in their products).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |