Give up my 5D Mk3 for mirrorless?

BIGEYE

BIGEYE

Messages
1,205
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been looking at mirrorless cameras for some time with a view to replacing my Canon 5DMk3. The camera I am considering is a Sony A7R III, and will be used as an all-rounder, but mostly for family portraits & landscape. Initially I will continue to make use of my Canon L series lenses with an adapter, until such time that I can afford the Sony lenses. Is the Sony a better camera? My main drivers for the change is a better camera and weight savings. Is this a good move or not?
 
Genuine query, other than weight, whet benefit do you think you will achieve moving to mirrorless?
Have your skills exceeded the capabilities of the camera?

Trust me, I'd like to get a new camera to replace my 6d, but limitations of cost are prohibitive (to me) and also, I don't know, other than a smile to my face, what benefit I will achieve.
 
Some of the features on the Sony I like, and I understand it is a better camera.
 
Well I learned on mirrorless and would say yes, go for it. I've tried DSLR but find it counterintuitive having to move away for the viewfinder to check a screen. I think the real beauty of mirrorless is seeing everything you change alter the image right there in front of your eye without every having to move the camera away from your face, Obviously there are other differences and my view may have been different if I had learnt on a DSLR
 
As for the 5D Mk3 vs A7R III I would think most people would agree the Sony is the better camera.
 
There are a number of features I like, in particular, the auto eye focus.
 
BIGEYE said:
I've been looking at mirrorless cameras for some time with a view to replacing my Canon 5DMk3. The camera I am considering is a Sony A7R III, and will be used as an all-rounder, but mostly for family portraits & landscape. Initially I will continue to make use of my Canon L series lenses with an adapter, until such time that I can afford the Sony lenses. Is the Sony a better camera? My main drivers for the change is a better camera and weight savings. Is this a good move or not?
Click to expand...

The A73 is the all rounder not the A7R3 but in your shoes I wouldn't switch unless the weight really is a problem. At the end of the day after you've spent all that money replacing the camera, accessories and eventually the lenses if you're doing things right the photos won't really look much different. You may or may not prefer using the Sony mirrorless but the best way to answer that is actually try one first and see if the differences matter enough to justify the cost.

At the very least wait until after both Nikon and Canon have put their mirrorless bodies on the market as that'll reduce prices on older cameras.
 
personally I would wait for the panasonic ff to launch
 
NewBeetle said:
As for the 5D Mk3 vs A7R III I would think most people would agree the Sony is the better camera.
Click to expand...

The 5d3 is - what - five year old (?) technology. Hardly surprising the Sony is a better camera. Having said that I'm still using a 5d3 and for most things its great.......
 
Definitely an update in technology, and would probably hold on to my 5d for a while anyway.
 
simonbarker said:
The A73 is the all rounder not the A7R3 but in your shoes I wouldn't switch unless the weight really is a problem. At the end of the day after you've spent all that money replacing the camera, accessories and eventually the lenses if you're doing things right the photos won't really look much different. You may or may not prefer using the Sony mirrorless but the best way to answer that is actually try one first and see if the differences matter enough to justify the cost.

At the very least wait until after both Nikon and Canon have put their mirrorless bodies on the market as that'll reduce prices on older cameras.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Jim, it's about time you organised a meet! I'll let you try the A73 to see what you think (y)
 
I don’t think anyone would disagree that the Sony is a better camera and it seems to work pretty well with Canon fit lenses via an adaptor depending on focal length. The A73 and A73R are good enough to hold their own for the foreseeable future as Canon doesn’t seem very close with its EOS R in overall spec although I’m sure that it will perform well enough.

As for waiting to see what others are going to bring to the table, what’s the point. By the time it’s launched there could be another body from Canon on the shelves and Sony aren’t going to stand still. Sony are now building a system that seems pretty comprehensive in general lens terms and Panasonic, for all their expertise in M4/3 mirrorless, will have their work cut out to get close to Sony at their first attempt. Sony have got good specs but, importantly they’ve got great AF which makes their cameras so versatile across different subject matter. Panasonic, good as their cameras are, have not been able to produce AF that competes with the best that Sony, Canon and Nikon can offer.
 
Have you compared the actual weights of the sony body and lens to your 5D and lens

Quick look shows the sony at 650g and the 5D 800g. Not earth shattering saving on the bodys

I saw a vlog somewhere where the author wanted to save weight so looked at an alternative system and realized a direct comparison saved so little weight but would of cost circa 6K to purchase.
 
NewBeetle said:
Well I learned on mirrorless and would say yes, go for it. I've tried DSLR but find it counterintuitive having to move away for the viewfinder to check a screen. I think the real beauty of mirrorless is seeing everything you change alter the image right there in front of your eye without every having to move the camera away from your face, Obviously there are other differences and my view may have been different if I had learnt on a DSLR
Click to expand...

Why check a screen? I use DSLR and mirror-less, and only rarely do I feel the need to check the image on the rear LCD.
 
JohnX said:
Why check a screen? I use DSLR and mirror-less, and only rarely do I feel the need to check the image on the rear LCD.
Click to expand...

To see the differences your adjustments in shutter/iso/aperture etc are making to your photo.
 
The weight savings i am looking at are with the Sony glass as opposed to my L series.
 
JohnX said:
Why check a screen? I use DSLR and mirror-less, and only rarely do I feel the need to check the image on the rear LCD.
Click to expand...
Very useful (for me) to check exposure and critical focus. I always check the screen after taking a shot on my D810. It has a lovely optical viewfinder but it’s no ‘better’ than making a ‘circle’ with your thumb and finger and looking through that. It will tell you nothing about blown highlights or whether the pdaf system got the focus right.
 
My 5D mkII with a 50mm f=1.4 weighs 1220g

My 50M with the 15 - 45mm lens weighs 495g.

I like doing long backpacking trips to Scandinavia. I go away for two or three weeks at a time so after food and camping kit there's not much room for cameras. Up till now I've been using compacts, so I'm hoping the 50M will improve my photo's. I have also got the 55-200mm lens and a very light weight carbon fibre tripod to complete my set up.
 
g
BIGEYE said:
The weight savings i am looking at are with the Sony glass as opposed to my L series.
Click to expand...

So a quick look says Canon 24-70mm 2.8L is 805g, Sony 24-70mm SSM II is 974g, canon 70-200 2.8 =1300g, sony 70-200 2.8 =1500g

unless im missing something they are heavier?
not trying to be clever and only spent 2 minutes looking at WEX wbsite, just asking if you had done a side by side comparison, Given these seem to be the go to lens 400g saving on the cannon side, thats a net 250g penalty to the sony system
 
OwenM said:
My 5D mkII with a 50mm f=1.4 weighs 1220g

My 50M with the 15 - 45mm lens weighs 495g.

I like doing long backpacking trips to Scandinavia. I go away for two or three weeks at a time so after food and camping kit there's not much room for cameras. Up till now I've been using compacts, so I'm hoping the 50M will improve my photo's. I have also got the 55-200mm lens and a very light weight carbon fibre tripod to complete my set up.
Click to expand...

absolutly, but you are comparing full frame to cropped sensor/M43. OP is comparing FF to FF doesnt appear to be a saving to me
 
Brazo said:
Very useful (for me) to check exposure and critical focus. I always check the screen after taking a shot on my D810. It has a lovely optical viewfinder but it’s no ‘better’ than making a ‘circle’ with your thumb and finger and looking through that. It will tell you nothing about blown highlights or whether the pdaf system got the focus right.
Click to expand...

My D750 seemed to nail focus all the time but like you I did always check screen after first shot too see how the highlights or if my chosen settings actually did want I wanted them to do!
 
NewBeetle said:
To see the differences your adjustments in shutter/iso/aperture etc are making to your photo.
Click to expand...

I don’t see any huge advantage in an EVF. Like many I’ve spent a lot of time using my camera in various lighting conditions and processing the RAW files from it which has given me an understanding of how much exposure comp I need to get the exposure ‘right’. I don’t need to see it in the viewfinder. As with all exposures it’s generally a compromise dependent on what the photographer is trying to achieve.
 
Mike.P said:
One major advantage (as a macro shooter) is being able to use focus peeking and magnify the image through the viewfinder before taking the shot. That alone is enough for me.
Click to expand...

I don’t manual focus for macro I let the AF do it. That’s why I bought an AF camera.
 
Gaz J said:
I don’t manual focus for macro I let the AF do it. That’s why I bought an AF camera.
Click to expand...

You can see the advantage for others who do though yes?

Even if you rely on AF it's useful to zoom in to make sure focus is exactly where you want it to be, I also like that regardless of the conditions you're shooting in (extremely dark or bright) the EVF will give you an easily viewed display.
 
woof woof said:
AF will focus on something but it may not be what you'd want the point of focus to be. Most people doing macro or close up use manual focus even if their cameras and lenses can AF.
Click to expand...

I guess I’m not most people and with spot AF I have no trouble focusing on what I want. My keeper rate is far higher with AF than manual focus.
 
simonbarker said:
You can see the advantage for others who do though yes?

Even if you rely on AF it's useful to zoom in to make sure focus is exactly where you want it to be, I also like that regardless of the conditions you're shooting in (extremely dark or bright) the EVF will give you an easily viewed display.
Click to expand...

Just sounds too complicated for me. I’ve refined my technique enough to be confident that I’ll get the shot quickly and accurately. Sharp is sharp is sharp no matter how it’s acheived.
 
Gaz J said:
I guess I’m not most people and with spot AF I have no trouble focusing on what I want. My keeper rate is far higher with AF than manual focus.
Click to expand...

I guess you're not most people but I think it also depends what you take pictures of and of course where your chosen point of focus is.

For example if your chosen point of focus isn't covered by an AF point what do you do? Alter your framing to cover it with an AF point? Focus somewhere else and hope that the DoF covers it? Focus and recompose? And then there's the depth of the subject. If for example your subject isn't flat and has protrusions, ridges, folds, curves or whatever then where will the AF focus?

For these and other reasons MF is often thought by many to be a better choice than what can be the comparatively rather crude tool that AF can be and that's before we get into the whole issue of DSLR AF accuracy and MA etc. This is one area in which I think that mirrorless cameras with their highly magnified view offer real advantages as you can very accurately focus on detail that you simply can not even see clearly (if at all) with a purely optical system.

With MF I'd say that my keeper rate is very high with the caveat being that I have to have the time to MF.
 
BIGEYE said:
I've been looking at mirrorless cameras for some time with a view to replacing my Canon 5DMk3. The camera I am considering is a Sony A7R III, and will be used as an all-rounder, but mostly for family portraits & landscape. Initially I will continue to make use of my Canon L series lenses with an adapter, until such time that I can afford the Sony lenses. Is the Sony a better camera? My main drivers for the change is a better camera and weight savings. Is this a good move or not?
Click to expand...

Years ago when I had a 5D I bought into MFT for a number of reasons and one (well, two) were saving bulk and weight and the first time I took my Pany G1 out instead of the 5D I honestly had to keep checking the bag to make sure it was still in there such was the weight saving. IMO if you want to save weight and bulk the smaller systems make the most sense and the RF style cameras even more so. These days I have RF style Pany GX80 and GX9 and compact and light lenses and this kit offers image quality which quite easily beats the old 5D and goes to ISO's that were science fiction back then. I don't now how MFT compares to a 5DIII though.

I also have a Sony A7 and the image quality comfortably beats MFT if I go pixel peeping looking for the differences. I have the excellent and tiny 35mm f2.8, the slightly larger but sill small and excellent 55mm f1.8 and the larger and yet again excellent 85mm f1.8 and I have a couple of native Voigtlander manual lenses too, 35mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.2.

I think that the A7 series makes the most sense over a DSLR in two areas...

- If you want compact and light kit, like a camera body and something like the 35mm f2.8 and/or 55mm f1.8.
- If you see and want the other advantages mirrorless may offer over DSLR's such as peaking, magnified view, in view histogram, WYSIWYG, no MA faff on etc.

PS.
My A7 doesn't have eye detect, just face and TBH it's quite a revelation when taking shots of people as you don't have to move the focus point and can concentrate on the subject, framing and capturing the moment. It's great for natural unposed shots and I can only imagine that eye detect is even better. The people shooting portraits and weddings certainly seem to be saying it's wonderful and it's one thing that is tempting me towards an A7III.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I guess you're not most people but I think it also depends what you take pictures of and of course where your chosen point of focus is.

For example if your chosen point of focus isn't covered by an AF point what do you do? Alter your framing to cover it with an AF point? Focus somewhere else and hope that the DoF covers it? Focus and recompose? And then there's the depth of the subject. If for example your subject isn't flat and has protrusions, ridges, folds, curves or whatever then where will the AF focus?

For these and other reasons MF is often thought by many to be a better choice than what can be the comparatively rather crude tool that AF can be and that's before we get into the whole issue of DSLR AF accuracy and MA etc. This is one area in which I think that mirrorless cameras with their highly magnified view offer real advantages as you can very accurately focus on detail that you simply can not even see clearly (if at all) with a purely optical system.

With MF I'd say that my keeper rate is very high with the caveat being that I have to have the time to MF.
Click to expand...

I generally shoot damselflies and dragonflies so I focus on the eye and adjust the AF point in the frame to give me the composition I’m after. This is where I’d like the greater coverage of AF points that mirrorless gives you. Occasionally I run out of AF points. The AF settings I use I’ve arrived at over the last 2/3 years and they are the result of a lot of trial and error. They’re set up on a custom setting on the camera to save time.

I adjust my distance from the subject dependent on what it is to give me a bit more DOF, although technically it isn’t macro then but who cares? One of the reasons I bought a high res body was to give more flexibility with lens to subject distance and the DOF produced as stacking in the field isn’t something I’ve ever really got the hang of with satisfactory results.

Just been messing around with focus peaking against straight AF and I can’t see any difference in the results.

As I’ve said before I don’t see many advantages in mirrorless for me and, with the exception of the Sony, certainly not from Canon and Nikon’s efforts just released. Shame the Sony is pretty rubbish focusing with my 500mm or I might be tempted to give one a go.
 
Gaz J said:
Just been messing around with focus peaking against straight AF and I can’t see any difference in the results.
Click to expand...

I use focus peaking a lot but I do think that it needs thinking about depending upon your aperture. At the widest apertures like f1.x to f2.8 or so I find it good as very little can be peaking and it'll therefore be quite accurate and may even stand up to close viewing at high magnification but it probably wont be as good as focusing manually if you have time to MF. At smaller apertures a lot might be peaking due to the deeper DoF and it may be easy to think it's doing a very good job but when you look closely the point of sharpest focus may not be where you'd want it to be because you couldn't finely judge because so much was peaking. For whole pictures viewed normally peaking, and AF, may be very good at wider apertures and good at smaller apertures but it's when looking very closely that you may be disappointed even if only slightly so, imo, because that's when you'll see any slight misfocusing.

MF is the best imo assuming you have the time as you can see your subject using a very highly magnified view and you can pick your point of focus over the curve of an eye or whatever other point takes your fancy whereas AF may hit an eyelash or something else (or with a DSLR it may be off due to MA issues or if the DSLR isn't focusing at f1.x) and peaking at wide aperture may be a bit off as it may not allow you to discern slight differences leaving DoF to cover it.
 
Gaz J said:
Just sounds too complicated for me. I’ve refined my technique enough to be confident that I’ll get the shot quickly and accurately. Sharp is sharp is sharp no matter how it’s acheived.
Click to expand...

What's complicated about zooming or having a well lit display?

You started this by saying you can't see any reasons, now they're too complicated and your refined technique means they don't matter. Sounds a bit ridiculous really, if you don't want to benefit from improvements or find that their disadvantages outweigh the advantages then that's entirely your choice but it'd save both our time for you to just say that rather than pretend they don't exist.
 
simonbarker said:
What's complicated about zooming or having a well lit display?

You started this by saying you can't see any reasons, now they're too complicated and your refined technique means they don't matter. Sounds a bit ridiculous really, if you don't want to benefit from improvements or find that their disadvantages outweigh the advantages then that's entirely your choice but it'd save both our time for you to just say that rather than pretend they don't exist.
Click to expand...

I don’t care how it sounds to you. I don’t see any benefits and my results speak for themselves using my technique. I need fast accurate AF which is what I’ve got with a well lit optical display. I didn’t say they don’t exist just that I can’t see them. Alan has probably explained the reason why I’m not seeing any benefit but as I don’t shoot at wide apertures I’ll stick with my system. If you think it’s worth using rock on, it’s your time and your camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top