gdanmitchell wrote:
I am using a 5DsR, and moving forward with any brand will ultimately require new lenses, so there is nothing to tie me to Canon.
That said. Sony is amazing. I just tested the ai focusing of the r6. And it was sticky as glue can’t wait to shoot it this weekend.
Well that's the move I did 9 years ago from 5DsR to A7RIII and used nearly all my Canon glass on the Metabones adapter until I could get some Sony glass and sell my EF lenses. I just bought a few Sony lenses up front.
Dan, what is it that prompted you to make the change now with the A7RVI vs the 7RV?
Pat
gdanmitchell wrote:
With the A7rVI,it is looking almost certain that my move to Sony will come soon. I am traveling at the moment, so I won’t be in the first wave of buyers — more likely after I return and once I see all of the additional tools I’ll need such as L brackets and so forth.
I’m also increasingly likely to include the new 100-400 (plus a 1.4x TC), though I’ve liked my “telescoping” Canon EF 100-400 for its smaller packed size.
Beyond that I need to get serious about filling out the set of lenses that I’ll need to roughly cover what I currently use on Canon....Show more →
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well that's the move I did 9 years ago from 5DsR to A7RIII and used nearly all my Canon glass on the Metabones adapter until I could get some Sony glass and sell my EF lenses. I just bought a few Sony lenses up front.
I bought the a7r III in 2017 and it was disastrous for AF with the Metastones and Sigma EF adapters. I used that camera like 3 times and put it away in 2018; it's still somewhere around here.
I tried the a7rIV later and it was sort of OK, but the pandenomic came and I never bought one. The a7rV was the first one of the R series that had good AF that finds the subjects and tracks well enough on it.
I use adapted lenses for some special purposes, but I am not a fan of that approach for general use.
(One exception might be for my EF 16-35mm f/4, a great lens but one that, while necessary, I don’t use a whole lot. Related: I currently sometimes use a Pentax MF zoom lens on a Mirex TS adapter with the 5DsR… and I’m contemplating the Frankenstein monster setup that might let me use it on the Sony…)
EB-1 wrote:
There are many lenses that Canon has/had that don't exist in Sony, less so in Nikon.
If you don't need the best AF get an MC-11 so that you can use some of the EF lenses to begin with.
EBH
- - -
EB-1 wrote:
I bought the a7r III in 2017 and it was disastrous for AF with the Metastones and Sigma EF adapters. I used that camera like 3 times and put it away in 2018; it's still somewhere around here.
I tried the a7rIV later and it was sort of OK, but the pandenomic came and I never bought one. The a7rV was the first one of the R series that had good AF that finds the subjects and tracks well enough on it.
EBH
Back when Sony introduced the first A7r camera, some may recall that there were (essentially or literally?) no lenses from Sony that were available for it. In fact, most of the people I knew who tried it (including those who stuck with Sony) were Canon users who were attracted by the idea that they could try the system without buying any new lenses at all — Sony provided an adapter with the camera that let them use their Canon lenses.
That worked with varying degrees of effectiveness. Some lenses worked OK (as in auto focused) with the adapters, while the performance of others was not good. My friends to moved to Sony early on were all landscape photographers who did not rely much at all on AF, so this was fine for them. I’m a landscape photographer but not _just_ a landscape photographer, so I stuck with what, at the time, worked more effectively for me, which was the Canon system and soon the 5DsR. (The 5DsR with EF lenses has worked great for me and still works well for a lot of what I do, but…)
But that was then. Sony has clearly gotten well past that early faking-it stage and now produces top notch gear. Each brand has some places where it excels relative to the others (perhaps Canon’s lenses overall?) and some where it lags (Canon gave up the lead on high MP systems), so my decision leans in a different way now than it did back then.
(In the end, I maintain that any skillful photographer can make excellent photographs with systems from any of these brands. If it were not for a few things that are important to me and the fact that Canon’s R mount means — just as it would if I used them on Sony — that I’d either use old lenses with adapters or replace most or all of the lenses with current models. In the old days, I’d keep the Canon lenses and update the body, but it isn’t that simple today.)
EB-1 wrote:
I bought the a7r III in 2017 and it was disastrous for AF with the Metastones and Sigma EF adapters. I used that camera like 3 times and put it away in 2018; it's still somewhere around here.
I tried the a7rIV later and it was sort of OK, but the pandenomic came and I never bought one. The a7rV was the first one of the R series that had good AF that finds the subjects and tracks well enough on it.
EBH
It worked great for me obviously not for action but I didn't buy it for that, I bought the A9. For landscape, macro, people, architecture my adapted lenses worked a treat given the limitations of Sony AF.
jhapeman wrote:
I got 30 minutes this evening with mine and the 600GM + 2x Teleconverter. I'm really impressed. Really, really impressed. The AF is fast and sticky and for perched birds slightly better. Still has the Sony weakness of needing to use a smaller zone to get it to rapidly find and lock on a bird. Not sure why they keep letting that linger when it seems like a good AI model update would address it. That said, I'm so used to how I shoot now to compensate that I don't think about it much. I programmed most things to match how I have my A1II's set up, but I do miss that upper left dial.
The files are gorgeous, high-ISO noise is impressive and cleans up really nicely with LR's AI DeNoise. AWB seems to be greatly improved, even better than my A1II's/A9III, which have been really good. The IBIS is great, I was shooting 1/500s handheld at 1200mm and getting tons of crispy shots, which is harder at that high pixel density. For my perched bird photography this thing will be killer, good enough to leave my A1II's behind if I don't plan on BIF work.
My one quibble is the VF has a bit of lag when on high resolution. I can't be the only one who's noticed this? ...Show more →
gdanmitchell wrote:
I use adapted lenses for some special purposes, but I am not a fan of that approach for general use.
(One exception might be for my EF 16-35mm f/4, a great lens but one that, while necessary, I don’t use a whole lot. Related: I currently sometimes use a Pentax MF zoom lens on a Mirex TS adapter with the 5DsR… and I’m contemplating the Frankenstein monster setup that might let me use it on the Sony…)
- - -
Back when Sony introduced the first A7r camera, some may recall that there were (essentially or literally?) no lenses from Sony that were available for it. In fact, most of the people I knew who tried it (including those who stuck with Sony) were Canon users who were attracted by the idea that they could try the system without buying any new lenses at all — Sony provided an adapter with the camera that let them use their Canon lenses.
That worked with varying degrees of effectiveness. Some lenses worked OK (as in auto focused) with the adapters, while the performance of others was not good. My friends to moved to Sony early on were all landscape photographers who did not rely much at all on AF, so this was fine for them. I’m a landscape photographer but not _just_ a landscape photographer, so I stuck with what, at the time, worked more effectively for me, which was the Canon system and soon the 5DsR. (The 5DsR with EF lenses has worked great for me and still works well for a lot of what I do, but…)
But that was then. Sony has clearly gotten well past that early faking-it stage and now produces top notch gear. Each brand has some places where it excels relative to the others (perhaps Canon’s lenses overall?) and some where it lags (Canon gave up the lead on high MP systems), so my decision leans in a different way now than it did back then.
(In the end, I maintain that any skillful photographer can make excellent photographs with systems from any of these brands. If it were not for a few things that are important to me and the fact that Canon’s R mount means — just as it would if I used them on Sony — that I’d either use old lenses with adapters or replace most or all of the lenses with current models. In the old days, I’d keep the Canon lenses and update the body, but it isn’t that simple today.) ...Show more →
Dan, you will be surprised how light and compact the Sony PZ 16-35 f4 G is compared to the Canon EF 16-35 f4 L IS, very sharp too. But the spongy manual focus feel of that Sony lens sucks vs the Canon's mechanical MF.
My friend just shot diving ospreys with his A7RVI, didn't seem to have visible jello effect due to the slower sensor reading speed vs the A1II which he also has.
FYI, in camera JPGs are nothing short of amazing. Sometimes, I do JPG along raw to have them ready. Did a bunch of medium ones and all look great and not overprocessed.
Douglas L wrote:
My friend just shot diving ospreys with his A7RVI, didn't seem to have visible jello effect due to the slower sensor reading speed vs the A1II which he also has.
Interested to learn more. I currently opted for a mint used A1 II but if you can shoot wildlife without the impact of rolling shutter I might consider an A7RVI.
swldstn wrote:
Interested to learn more. I currently opted for a mint used A1 II but if you can shoot wildlife without the impact of rolling shutter I might consider an A7RVI.
If you use FB, his name is Quan Vu. He posted both video and still photos of the osprey dives taken with the A7RVI. I still think if you shoot a lot of bird in flight the A1II should be the pick for the sensor speed and AF calculation/second. I don't have the A7RVI yet but based on a lot of the reviews I have seen, that seems to be the case.
I just watched Mark Galer's review and it's quite extensive. I'm interested in his Camsets and am willing to pay for his Patreon. When I got my A7RV it took me forever to get it set up properly and I'm a simple landscape shooter.
Does anyone know if a camset from my A7RV can be transferred to an A7RVI to get me started with my new A7RVI?
And, by the way, my Kirk L-bracket from the A7RV works fine on the A7RVI.
EB-1 wrote:
I bought the a7r III in 2017 and it was disastrous for AF with the Metastones and Sigma EF adapters. I used that camera like 3 times and put it away in 2018; it's still somewhere around here.
I tried the a7rIV later and it was sort of OK, but the pandemic came and I never bought one. The a7rV was the first one of the R series that had good AF that finds the subjects and tracks well enough on it.
EBH
I had a similar experience. I used a Canon 70-200 f/4 on my a7r iii and the AF was nearly useless, especially in early morning light so I picked up the current Sony version.
I have a Minolta film camera and use the lenses on my a7r V with a LA-EA5 adapter and it is way better than my a7r III was.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I use adapted lenses for some special purposes, but I am not a fan of that approach for general use.
(One exception might be for my EF 16-35mm f/4, a great lens but one that, while necessary, I don’t use a whole lot. Related: I currently sometimes use a Pentax MF zoom lens on a Mirex TS adapter with the 5DsR… and I’m contemplating the Frankenstein monster setup that might let me use it on the Sony…)
- - -
Back when Sony introduced the first A7r camera, some may recall that there were (essentially or literally?) no lenses from Sony that were available for it. In fact, most of the people I knew who tried it (including those who stuck with Sony) were Canon users who were attracted by the idea that they could try the system without buying any new lenses at all — Sony provided an adapter with the camera that let them use their Canon lenses.
That worked with varying degrees of effectiveness. Some lenses worked OK (as in auto focused) with the adapters, while the performance of others was not good. My friends to moved to Sony early on were all landscape photographers who did not rely much at all on AF, so this was fine for them. I’m a landscape photographer but not _just_ a landscape photographer, so I stuck with what, at the time, worked more effectively for me, which was the Canon system and soon the 5DsR. (The 5DsR with EF lenses has worked great for me and still works well for a lot of what I do, but…)
But that was then. Sony has clearly gotten well past that early faking-it stage and now produces top notch gear. Each brand has some places where it excels relative to the others (perhaps Canon’s lenses overall?) and some where it lags (Canon gave up the lead on high MP systems), so my decision leans in a different way now than it did back then.
(In the end, I maintain that any skillful photographer can make excellent photographs with systems from any of these brands. If it were not for a few things that are important to me and the fact that Canon’s R mount means — just as it would if I used them on Sony — that I’d either use old lenses with adapters or replace most or all of the lenses with current models. In the old days, I’d keep the Canon lenses and update the body, but it isn’t that simple today.) ...Show more →
The a7r was terrible with adapted longer lenses. All the images from the 100-400 II were so shaky it was ridiculous. Something about the sensor and camera design was flimsy so it vibrated terribly. You also needed like 5 of those puny batteries for a long day.
I don't know if you use tilt-shift, long macros, or some teles not available for Sony. The SOny 24-105/4 is not all that great. I was hoping for a new 100-400/5.6, but not yet. I'm sure you can find plenty of short primes if that's what you use. I mostly pan-stitch in the desert southwest, so rarely moving water to contend with. The 45MP is so fast at that it's easy to get multi-row 500-1000MP without concern over the individual frame size. However, 67MP might be enough for some purposes like water.
I have to use the a7rVI more to decide to buy any new Sony lenses. If Nikon had that same 67MP sensor I'd be fully going back to Nikon. I have often used two systems, but three is too much.
EB-1 wrote:
The a7r was terrible with adapted longer lenses. All the images from the 100-400 II were so shaky it was ridiculous. Something about the sensor and camera design was flimsy so it vibrated terribly. You also needed like 5 of those puny batteries for a long day.
I don't know if you use tilt-shift, long macros, or some teles not available for Sony. The SOny 24-105/4 is not all that great. I was hoping for a new 100-400/5.6, but not yet. I'm sure you can find plenty of short primes if that's what you use. I mostly pan-stitch in the desert southwest, so rarely moving water to contend with. The 45MP is so fast at that it's easy to get multi-row 500-1000MP without concern over the individual frame size. However, 67MP might be enough for some purposes like water.
I have to use the a7rVI more to decide to buy any new Sony lenses. If Nikon had that same 67MP sensor I'd be fully going back to Nikon. I have often used two systems, but three is too much.
I use the 21, 35 and 100 Zeiss ze lenses adapted to Sony for landscape photography with no problems. Yes, if I was looking at AF lenses, I’d stick with native Sony mounts…but I’m very happy using my Canon mount Zeiss lenses for landscapes.
deepDEEPpurple wrote:
That is great news! Can he share some here?
If you mean Zeiss ZE lenses on a Sony body, then here are a few shots from two summers ago at Zion National Park with the A7r V and the Sigma MC-11 adapter. I concur these ZE lenses work well on a Sony camera for landscape shooting.
can’t wait to shoot it this weekend. 
