Final decision - Sony a6400 vs Canon RP.

Messages
14
Name
Júlio Marin
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been using a Canon 6D for over 5 years. I used to work with photopgrahy now I don't do it anymore (and I don't intend). So all my pictures now are family and friends gathering and portraits (casual stuff). The size, weight and AF is really preventing me for using the camera more often. So I'm really thinking about an upgrade.

I was settled for the Sony a6400, but I would have to sell all my Canon gear and go back to APSC sensor that doesn't seem a good idead to me (I love taking pictures at night in low light)


The Canon RP is the same price (I can't afford anything more expensive) as the a6400.
So I was wondering if it's worth to get a Canon RP with a Canon EF/RF adapter to use my current lenses (35mm f2 / 50mm f1.8 and 24-105mm f4) instead of the Sony.


I know that Sony is a faster camera (both FPS and autofocus) but I don't shoot sports, kids or animals at all.

*Also, APSC Canon cameras, like the R10, would not fit my necessities since my favorite FOV is 35mm and there is nothing with this angle, with larger aperture, available for APSC Canon at this moment.
 
I don’t know if this will help at all.
I haven’t used the RP or the Sony

But I did use 6D’s for years professionally and I am now a canon R series user.

The RP will be a step or more above a 6d in just about every way, its budget friendly and with the converter it means you get to keep your current lenses and they’ll work at least as well as they did before. It’s the least disruptive option.

The real answer busts your budget, but the R6 is what you should get next, when you look to upgrade from the RP.

I was fortunate that I had a lot of gear to sell when I quit weddings, and a couple of bonus additions into my budget too. So I’ve ended up with 2 R6’s, 4RF lenses*, and I still have some EF lenses I can’t justify the cost of upgrading to RF. namely the 135f2, the 70-200 2.8 and a Sigma 150-600.

Oddly the only lens I have left to sell is my 35mm Art. I loved that lens when I shot weddings, but in my current life it doesn’t justify a spot in the camera bag.

*for anyone who might be interested, the 16mm, 50, 85f2 and the 24-70.
 
If I wanted to swap systems to Sony, I'd look at a used A7III and the sigma canon to Sony adapter, and keep your lenses. But the Canon body will adapt better if you follow PhilV's advice.
 
If I wanted to swap systems to Sony, I'd look at a used A7III and the sigma canon to Sony adapter, and keep your lenses. But the Canon body will adapt better if you follow PhilV's advice.
I don’t know if this will help at all.
I haven’t used the RP or the Sony

But I did use 6D’s for years professionally and I am now a canon R series user.

The RP will be a step or more above a 6d in just about every way, its budget friendly and with the converter it means you get to keep your current lenses and they’ll work at least as well as they did before. It’s the least disruptive option.

The real answer busts your budget, but the R6 is what you should get next, when you look to upgrade from the RP.

I was fortunate that I had a lot of gear to sell when I quit weddings, and a couple of bonus additions into my budget too. So I’ve ended up with 2 R6’s, 4RF lenses*, and I still have some EF lenses I can’t justify the cost of upgrading to RF. namely the 135f2, the 70-200 2.8 and a Sigma 150-600.

Oddly the only lens I have left to sell is my 35mm Art. I loved that lens when I shot weddings, but in my current life it doesn’t justify a spot in the camera bag.

*for anyone who might be interested, the 16mm, 50, 85f2 and the 24-70.
Thanks! The R6 is totally out of my budget and would not justify the price for my usage.
The main issue I'm facing with the RP is the size along with the lenses (mainly the 24-105mm). It gets HUGE with the adapter.
Other lenses would not get that small size eighter. And there's no way I could afford any RF lenses at the moment.
And I'm looking to get something smaller and lighter.
I think, for my purposes, the A6400 would fit me more. Is lighter, smaller and has cheaper lenses.
But I don't know how it would performe at low light, sadly.
 
If you want small, fast AF, lighter, cheaper and are considering crop, you should look a M4/3. I don't think it gives up much compared to crop, but it does tick a lot of those other boxes. Mechanical lenses also adapt well, but not so much electronic.

FWIW I find the A7III quite a bit smaller than older DSLRs, and some newer mirrorless. Used is a good place to start too.
 
Thanks! The R6 is totally out of my budget and would not justify the price for my usage.
The main issue I'm facing with the RP is the size along with the lenses (mainly the 24-105mm). It gets HUGE with the adapter.
Other lenses would not get that small size eighter. And there's no way I could afford any RF lenses at the moment.
And I'm looking to get something smaller and lighter.
I think, for my purposes, the A6400 would fit me more. Is lighter, smaller and has cheaper lenses.
But I don't know how it would performe at low light, sadly.
What sort of ISO are you thinking about when talking 'low light' - different people have different expectations?
I've got the earlier A6000, and that's fine to ISO 1600, or 3200 with a bit of work.
(My A7iv can shoot 12800, but that's newer and FF)
I don't know how well the RP handles low light.

Assuming it's comparable / better, then the Canon camera will be the better fit with your existing glass, while the Sony will offer smaller, lighter APS-C options as well as an extensive range of native mount 3rd party lenses being available (Canon heavily restrict native 3rd party on their mirrorless cameras).
 
Last edited:
If you want small, fast AF, lighter, cheaper and are considering crop, you should look a M4/3. I don't think it gives up much compared to crop, but it does tick a lot of those other boxes. Mechanical lenses also adapt well, but not so much electronic.

FWIW I find the A7III quite a bit smaller than older DSLRs, and some newer mirrorless. Used is a good place to start too.
I have an Olympus EPL-8, great little camera. But I don't see myself investing in M43 right now.
A7III is very expensive even used here in Brazil, like 50% more than a new a6400/RP (they are the same price new)

What sort of ISO are you thinking about when talking 'low light' - different people have different expectations?
I've got the earlier A6000, and that's fine to ISO 1600, or 3200 with a bit of work.
(My A7iv can shoot 12800, but that's newer and FF)
I don't know how well the RP handles low light.

Assuming it's comparable / better, then the Canon camera will be the better fit with your existing glass, while the Sony will offer smaller, lighter APS-C options as well as an extensive range of native mount 3rd party lenses being available (Canon heavily restrict native 3rd party on their mirrorless cameras).
Well, the higher I go usually is 6400.
I have an old Olympus EPL-8, which has a smaller and older sensor compared to a6400. I tried a few shots with my wife, casual stuff, just to test the high ISO capability with my Olympus trying to see if I can get good usable results with 6400, using software to reduce noise.
This picture was shot using ISO 6400 with the Olympus, I think the result is very good and maybe I can get even better with the a6400.
(The shot was under low light - almost night time)
(Again, nothing that I will be using professionaly, just family and friends)


Seen these results makes me think seriously about getting the A6400, since size and weight is a huge concern at the moment. Canon RP with adapted lenses will get very big and heavy.
Other thing that came to my mind: Getting the RP I would be using a 35mm f/2 and a 24-105mm f4. While using Sony, I would be getting the Viltrox 23mm f/1.4 and a 18-50mm f/2.8. Maybe the amount of light I'm getting from these lenses on Sony could result on a lower ISO to get the same picture, compare to the Canon?
 
That depends on how they compare to each other wide open and stabilisation per system/lens.
 
That depends on how they compare to each other wide open and stabilisation per system/lens.
None of them has IBIS or IS on the lenses (except for 24-105mm but I never really use it)

But I made my decision (and I thank all of you):

I ended up buying the Sony a6400 for these two reasons:

  • Size and weight:
The Canon RP with adapter and lenses, mainly the zoom 24-105mm f4 would get huge and heavy, totally going against what I'm looking for (portability).
  • Lens prices and availability:
Canon doesn't have many RF lenses available and most of them are extremelly expensive (note that I don't work with photography and gear prices here in Brazil are a bad joke) - Also, I can sell my current EF lenses (35mm f2, 50mm f1.8 and 24-105mm f4), buy similar FOV lenses for Sony (even with wider aperture) and I will spend less than 50% the price I'd get on my current Canon lenses. And I won't have to spend money buying an adapter.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top