Next move... stick with Canon or move to Sony?

Messages
3,528
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
Long story short.

I have a 5D and several lenses.

I recently dug out my old Minolta film camera and lenses (and bought some more) and was interested in using them on a digital body.

Minolta and Canon FF don't really play together that well, so I bought a used MKI Sony A7. In many respects, Minolta Lenses could be seen as heritage lenses for Sony, given the history of the companies. Anyway, whether you believe that or not, they work really well and I'm very pleased with the Sony.

So much so, that I'm beginning to question where I go next.

I've pretty much always shot on Canon since going DSLR. And always assumed my next big move would be to go mirrorless and save up for an R6 or even an R5. Then slowly upgrade the lenses when I can afford to do so.

But as I've sort of accidentally gone mirrorless, I'm wondering if I might stick with Sony. And maybe just get a Metabones adapter to use my Canon lenses on the A7. Again upgrading them when I can afford to - this time to Sony - or even getting rid of anything I'm not really using.

This would be cheaper in the short term as I already have the A7 body and I'd have to use an adapter anyway if I went to an EOS R so the adapter is neither here nor there.

But it's a huge shift. More so in terms of my attitude than anything else.

But then I've read some posts recently that recommend the R6 over and above any A7.

I've read that going mirrorless with Canon would still enable me to use all my old Miinolta lenses - with the correct adapter - plus all my Canon lenses could be used with an official Canon adapter. Native lenses I would assume would work better.

I'm really confused and would be interested to hear opinions. Do's. Don'ts - etc from people who have been in a similar boat.
 
Last edited:
I may be wrong but I think that any adapted AF lenses may work rather slowly on an original A7. That may not be an issue for you but I think you'll need some user feedback before investing heavily in that way.

I use manual lenses on my original A7 quite a lot and more than AF at the moment and for some time and it is a nice experience when time allows so I can see your attraction but for adapted AF lenses a newer camera may be a better bet. Canon v Sony wise, I'm no fan boy but from the outside looking in overall maybe Sony has more choice in AF lenses over several price points. I do find that my creaking old A7 is fast enough for my needs with the Sony AF lenses I have but the tracking wont be anywhere near newer cameras abilities. It does lack eye detect and an electronic shutter though.
 
The Canon RF kit does look really good, but the native lenses are so expensive, with not third party options available.
 
Canon EF lenses adapt perfectly to the RF bodies. When I’ve used canon EF adapted to Sony the AF performance was too slow to be usable for me. Try renting or borrowing an R6 to see for yourself? I have a lot of canon lenses so stuck with canon.
 
The Canon RF kit does look really good, but the native lenses are so expensive, with not third party options available.

I've just read this week that Sigma has just launched a range - but currently only for the RF APS-C cameras. So I'm guessing it's coming.

I may be wrong but I think that any adapted AF lenses may work rather slowly on an original A7. That may not be an issue for you but I think you'll need some user feedback before investing heavily in that way.

I use manual lenses on my original A7 quite a lot and more than AF at the moment and for some time and it is a nice experience when time allows so I can see your attraction but for adapted AF lenses a newer camera may be a better bet. Canon v Sony wise, I'm no fan boy but from the outside looking in overall maybe Sony has more choice in AF lenses over several price points. I do find that my creaking old A7 is fast enough for my needs with the Sony AF lenses I have but the tracking wont be anywhere near newer cameras abilities. It does lack eye detect and an electronic shutter though.

All fair points.

In the back of my mind, I think a Tamron 35-150 and a Sony 16-35 would cover almost all of my photography.

Selling all my Canon kit, would probably enable me to get both of those SH and then an upgraded Sony body instead of a Canon R(X)

But maybe that's a very heavy trade off

See below.

Canon EF lenses adapt perfectly to the RF bodies. When I’ve used canon EF adapted to Sony the AF performance was too slow to be usable for me. Try renting or borrowing an R6 to see for yourself? I have a lot of canon lenses so stuck with canon.

Good to know.

I also am pretty heavily invested in Canon and it would mean selling at quite a loss to switch.

I'm pretty sure that everything I now own is second hand, including:

Canon 100-400 L
Canon 70-200 L II
Canon 24-70 L II
Canon 17-40 L
Canon 85/1.8
Canon 50 STM
Canon 40/2.8
Sigma 12-24

430 EXII
580 EXII
Yongnuo 600LX

Plus various other little bits and bobs - off camera cords, hand grips etc which would be worth nothing to MPB.

A quick quote (being realistic about the way they assess condition) suggests £1888 for all of it.

Which is probably too low.
 
Last edited:
About 18 months ago I was given an R7 as a retirement present.

I have used my 5Div and 6Dii bodies for many years and have a range of L lenses.

The lenses work perfectly on the R7 and I am now just waiting for Canon to release the R5ii so I can go fully mirrorless.

R7 / 100-400 Lii:
 
Last edited:
I have the R5 and R7, very different cameras, and love them both. The R7 is for distant birds and very close bugs. The R7 has some annoying drawbacks like AF failures when the subject is not ideal and of course the rolling shutter issue when shooting electronic shutter (so I never use that mode), but despite that, I get more keepers with that camera than any previous crop body. The R5 is for the studio and all other photography and with the RF 24-105mm L lens, continues to amaze me.

That said, my friends using Sony gear are getting fantastic results, and it is possible their AF works better. There is talk that Canon is lagging (again).

I have lived through several cycles of the manufacturers leapfrogging each other. There is intense competition and it is benefiting us photographers.

I'm sticking with Canon because I love the lenses, and the gear is mostly delivering what is expected. In this business, if you feel the gear is lagging a bit in performance, wait a couple of years and there will be new bodies. For me that is better than switching.

But for those just starting out, I would suggest looking hard at Sony. It is very expensive gear, though.
 
Canon 100-400 L
Canon 70-200 L II
Canon 24-70 L II
Canon 17-40 L
Canon 85/1.8
Canon 50 STM
Canon 40/2.8
Sigma 12-24
moving to sony would give you a nice justification to offload all that and rightly so.

I can't say I like Sony, but I like lens choice for E mount. And I can't say I like Canon other than EF mount Sigma lenses available for it. Z8 or Z9 is the thing really
 
If you want to use & keep your current Canon lenses/lens range then a Canon FF mirrorless will be your best bet. Your Canon lenses are going to be rubbish on the A7 - if they work at all.

If you want to start with a clean slate and be a bit more minimal, then sell the lot & go fully Sony.
 
Sticking with Canon makes the most sense with the amount of lenses you've got. Unless you are unhappy with these lenses and wish to change them. I shoot Sony and the selection of lenses is 2nd to none although I may have top of the range GM lenses but I have used Tamron and I do own one sigma lens. The quality from these third-party manufacturers is now outstanding. Using a meta-bones adapter is okay but by no means perfect. When I first switch from Canon I found it worked okay on most lenses but not my 70 to 200. It looks like it will not be long before a R5MKII comes out which time there will be lots of quality, secondhand R5's around.
 
I think a little step back and some logic is required here.

There’s 2 different questions IMO.

Do you need a new Sony body to utilise your old Minolta lenses? At the cost of your Canon gear.

Or would you like a new Canon mirrorless body to use your EF lenses? Where’s the money coming from?
 
I think a little step back and some logic is required here.

There’s 2 different questions IMO.

Do you need a new Sony body to utilise your old Minolta lenses? At the cost of your Canon gear.

Or would you like a new Canon mirrorless body to use your EF lenses? Where’s the money coming from?

First question is a no.

The Minolta lenses work flawlessly using focus peaking to take the shots. It's possible to miss, of course, in the same way that it was with full manual focus on film cameras.

I could quite happily continue as I am for some time. I have no AF lenses for the Sony as it was bought body only purely to use the Minolta lenses. And ONLY because I couldn't do that with the 5D - without buying an adapter with an extra lens in it to allow infinity focusing. And all the extra problems that brings.

However, I like the Sony. So much so, it’s made me question my previous train of thought.

If I do end up getting a Canon mirrorless, then I’d have to question whether it’s worth keeping the Sony to continue to use purely with the manual lenses - especially as I believe an adapter can be used on the Canon.

A lot of it is trying to simplify storage.

For the second question, as I said, I assumed I’d go Canon as it would seem to make the most sense. Especially now, hearing that Canon lenses might not work so well on the Sony (any Sony) and that they work flawlessly on the Canon.

As for the money, I’m purely amateur so funds come from me putting a little aside each month till I can afford the thing I want. It’s not going through a business.
 
Last edited:
First question is a no.

The Minolta lenses work flawlessly.

I could quite happily continue as I am for some time. I have no AF lenses for the Sony as it was bought body only purely to use the Minolta lenses.

However, I like the Sony. So much so, it’s making me question whether one camera (or one system) would/could be the way forward.

If I do end up getting a Canon mirrorless, then I’d have to question whether it’s worth keeping the Sony to continue to use purely with the manual lenses - especially as I believe an adapter can be used on the Canon.

A lot of it is trying to simplify storage.

For the second question, as I said, I assumed I’d go Canon as it would seem to make the most sense. Especially now, hearing that Canon lenses might not work so well on the Sony (any Sony) and that they work flawlessly on the Canon.

As for the money, I’m purely amateur so funds come from me putting a little aside each month till I can afford the thing I want. It’s not going through a business.
Considering your Canon lenses, and their AF Performance, they will be best on a Canon mirrorless, and better on a more recent Sony than on the original A7 (Sony significantly improved the ability to work with adapted lenses, in addition to the overall AF being much better).

If you are considering a R6, then you need to be comparing it to a similar Sony body to get a meaningful comparison - the R6 is ~ 2.5k, so the A7iv (~2.2k) or A7CR (~2.65k), and then look at the range of features for each option, and if the AF on your lenses would be noticeably different for your use, and also what your options on selling the lenses and switching to entirely Sony (+3rd party).

It's certainly not a simple question, as a lot depends on your particular wants/needs - but whatever you decide, be it an Canon or a Sony, the current mirrorless bodies are amazing bits of kit, as the race between Canon / Nikon / Sony has forced them to hunt for new ways to entice you to spend your cash!
 
It depends on what Minolta lenses you have.
I used to have Minolta AF lenses (a-mount) that worked fine when I switched to Sony DSLRs (a100 and a350). But the AF was slow. This was before the mirrorless a7 came out.
If you have some nice Minolta primes (50 f1.4, or 85mm) then it might be worth continuing with them on the A7, but for most of the other lenses, your Canon EF gear is going to be much better, both for AF and image quality.
Unless you switch completely to Sony with a newer A7 model, I'd just upgrade your Canon to an R6 or perhaps the R8 (as it's basically the R6 Mk2 in a smaller, cheaper body).
I highly recommend the Canon Test Drive service too, just book a weekend rental of the camera body you want to test with an EF adapter and try all of your lenses. Also if you book for the May bank holiday weekend you'll get the extra day free as well.
 
Thanks for all the comments.

I think my mind is made up to stick with Canon.

I 'think' I'll keep the A7 to use with the Minolta lenses as I really like the way that works - but then I've not used a Canon mirrorless yet, and that could well be much better as it way newer.

As for the Minolta lenses I have, I do have quite a bundle of primes. They're not all the fastest versions of each focal length, but then they're not all in the hundreds of pounds per lens category either. The ones in bold are the fastest versions they made of that focal length (in 'MD' anyway).

24/2.8
28/2.8
35/1.8
45/2

50/1.4
50/1.7
100/2.5
135/3.5

The zooms are the

MDIIIa 28-70 (not widely respected, but it was a tenner).
MDIII 35-70/3.5 - the is the one everyone wants - because of the constant aperture.
MDIII 28-85/3.5-4.5. This was actually more expensive (at launch) than the 35-70 above, I've not widely tested them next to each other, but I like it. Bit more reach, bit more contrasty, but also bigger and heavier.




Lens Line up by Kell, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the comments.

I think my mind is made up to stick with Canon.

I 'think' I'll keep the A7 to use with the Minolta lenses as I really like the way that works - but that's because I've not used the Canon yet.

As for the Minolta lenses I have, I do have quite a bundle of primes. They're not all the fastest versions of each focal length, but then they're not all in the hundreds of pounds per lens category either. The ones in bold are the fastest versions they made of that focal length (in 'MD' anyway).

24/2.8
28/2.8
35/1.8
45/2

50/1.4
50/1.7
100/2.5
135/3.5



Lens Line up by Kell, on Flickr
Ah, I missed the bit where you said manual lenses (ie they were MD mount).
In which case, there's little advantage in sticking to the A7. Since you have to use them manually for focus and aperture, there's nothing there for communication with the body.
So, I'd just move to a Canon R body with an MD to RF mount adapter like this one: https://uk.urth.co/products/minolta...era-mount?currency=GBP&variant=35444707786917
You get focus peaking on Canon R bodies and sticking with Canon allows you to use both EF and the MD lenses via adapters.
 
It depends on what Minolta lenses you have.
I used to have Minolta AF lenses (a-mount) that worked fine when I switched to Sony DSLRs (a100 and a350). But the AF was slow. This was before the mirrorless a7 came out.
If you have some nice Minolta primes (50 f1.4, or 85mm) then it might be worth continuing with them on the A7, but for most of the other lenses, your Canon EF gear is going to be much better, both for AF and image quality.
Unless you switch completely to Sony with a newer A7 model, I'd just upgrade your Canon to an R6 or perhaps the R8 (as it's basically the R6 Mk2 in a smaller, cheaper body).
I highly recommend the Canon Test Drive service too, just book a weekend rental of the camera body you want to test with an EF adapter and try all of your lenses. Also if you book for the May bank holiday weekend you'll get the extra day free as well.

I'm not sure I'd agree with the image quality remark.

Part of the reason I got in to this quandary in the first place, is that I really like the results from the Minolta lenses on the Sony. Obviously, it's manual focus, but when yoiu get it right, the images are super sharp and nice and contrasty. I know that's not everyone's cup of tea, but it works to my eye.

I think they're up there with some of my favourite images that I've produced (not claiming that that's a particularly high bar...)


I think these were all with the 35-70/3.5 zoom. Although the Oculus pic and last one may have been the 24mm.

Nathan's Hot Dogs, Coney Island by Kell, on Flickr

Oculus by Kell, on Flickr

Steam Vent, 6th Ave by Kell, on Flickr

Nathan's Original by Kell, on Flickr

Subway by Kell, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I'd agree with the image quality remark.

Part of the reason I got in to this quandary in the first place, is that I really like the results from the Minolta lenses on the Sony. Obviously, it's manual focus, but when yoiu get it right, the images are super sharp and nice and contrasty. I know that's not everyone's cup of tea, but it works to my eye.

I think they're up there with some of my favourite images that I've produced.

I mean, it's a fairly low bar, but ...

I think these were all with the 35-70/3.5 zoom. The last one may have been the 24mm.
Modern optics are generally sharper, particularly if you're talking L series lenses. But that does of course depend on what you're comparing to. A lens that was top quality for it's time may still be able to produce good images if it's been kept in good condition.

If you like the like the shooting experience of the A7 + MD lenses, then stick with that and treat them as an entirely separate system. There will be no advantage to upgrading the A7 as AF doesn't come into the equation.
Then look at the Canon question separately, does it still do what you want? If not then look at the R series.
If you find yourself not using the Canon kit much, why is that? Size/weight? Not enjoying it as much?
Which 5D model do you have?
I would serious try out an R series camera from the Test Drive service, it's free and would give you an idea of whether upgrading the 5D to an R series would be any advantage.
If you found that by comparison you still preferred the Sony A7 over a newer R series, then, I'd sell the 5D and upgrade the A7.
 
Sorry for the long winded reply but as someone who had a 5D and moved to an A7 I thought I'd try and give a fuller reply than I did above.

I've been with Sony since the introduction of the original A7 and I still have mine but there are some issues to be aware of, none of them seriously affect me.

The original A7's focus and other systems are not up to modern standards. I find my A7 fine for one shot static shots which is all I take but things like the frame rate and tracking are nowhere near the ability of later cameras. This of course doesn't matter when manually focusing and taking single pictures but they're just things to keep in mind if you may be using AF lenses on the A7 and taxing what the camera can do. Of course your 5D frame rate and focus wont be up to modern standards either plus you're limited to a small number of focus points clustered around the central area, at some point you may appreciate a better focus system and a better performing camera than either the 5D or A7.

Another issue with the A7 which is visible above is sensor reflections which may be visible if there are light sources in the frame. This is something that I mentioned today in another thread and it is visible above and to be clear this is an issue with the MK1 A7 (rather than being purely a lens issue) when used with some lenses and I believe that Sony either eliminated or improved this with later cameras but I'm vague on what is affected and what isn't or is at least affected less. If you haven't noticed this before then sorry for making you aware of the issue :D Googling A7 sensor reflections may get you more information. Another criticism of the A7 which has never bothered me one jot is the colour science. Some seem to criticize earlier Sonys in this respect but I have no complaints (and I do have to say that despite colour science complaints on forums "blind" tests do seem to indicate that people like Sony pictures if they don't know they are Sony pictures) and then of course there are the menus. I have no problem with Sony menus and once a camera is set up I hardly use the menu anyway but some people do have complaints but to balance these the 5D menu system as I remember it is really just a list.

On the positive side the original A7 is quite compact and later bodies have grown a bit but having said all that negative stuff I have to say that I had a 5D for years and IMO the A7 just blows it away on every single count plus you get the advantages that mirrorless brings.

I have my A7 and also MFT cameras but I'm not sure that having two different camera systems is a great idea unless it's for valid reasons. I think rather than have both Sony and Canon FF cameras I'd look at moving away from Canon and just having Sony. I'm not a fan boy by any means but I do think that there are advantages to Sony even when looking at newer Canon mirrorless systems. I believe Sony have a much wider choice of lenses both from Sony and the 3rd party people and I also believe the Sony system has a wider selection of reasonably priced but good quality lens options. You could of course use your DSLR lenses on a Canon mirrorless camera via an adapter.

So, my 2p worth is if you like the A7 then keep it for MF and the Canon for AF with your current lenses or think about selling the Canon kit and going mirrorless by either replacing the A7 and the 5D with a more modern Sony for a one camera solution or sell the Canon kit and add a more modern Sony to your A7 to have more familiarity and two cameras which can use the same lenses. Selling the 5D and the A7 and starting again with a newer Sony and Sony / 3rd party Sony mount lenses is arguably the more sensible thing to do, money allowing.

I think you might be pleasantly surprised if you try more modern mirrorless era lenses as they seem to have come on significantly. When I first compared my then new A7 and Sony lenses to my 5D and the best DSLR lenses I had it wasn't even close, the Sony kit was just in a different league entirely. Replacing your DSLR lenses could be expensive but I do think that mirrorless offers clear and significant advantages and in your position and if finances allow I'd sell all the Canon kit and go fully mirrorless with a newer Sony or just the A7 if you can live with the rather pedestrian by modern standards focusing abilities which might still be an improvement over the 5D. Having two Sonys, one newer and with the bells and whistles and the old A7 just for MF is another way to go but maybe selling the lot and going for an A7III or later would make the most sense to me.
 
I would serious try out an R series camera from the Test Drive service, it's free and would give you an idea of whether upgrading the 5D to an R series would be any advantage.
If you found that by comparison you still preferred the Sony A7 over a newer R series, then, I'd sell the 5D and upgrade the A7.

I've reserved an R6 and adapter for over the bank holiday at the end of the month.
 
Last edited:
In terms of full disclosure, I had a canon 1.4x extender that I bought and used once so traded it against a Sigma MC-11 Canon EF > Sony E adapter.

Essentially everything everyone said was true. (Not that I thought it wouldn't be - I just needed to see whether the additional slowness was something I could live with).

It did work, but only in a VERY limited way.

It was actually slower to focus than using manual focus. And sometimes it would hunt and hunt and then not focus at all.
It was better to use the Canon AF lenses in manual mode, which negated any need for an expensive adapter with all the electronics in it.

It was worth trying it as I found out that it’s basically useless on a MKI A7. Which would mean to go down the Sony route would have to be a new(er) body as well.

While it ‘may’ work on a newer model, it wouldn’t be a given, and it's not really a risk that I can afford to take.

If money were no object, I’d trial all the options and buy the one I liked most, and all the native lenses that come with it. Sell all my kit etc etc.

But unfortunately, it is a just a hobby and the option that makes the most sense for me will be to probably go down the R(something) route. I tried to phrase it so that it wasn't like this is a second best option - as I don't think it is.

This will still be SH, which is why I opted for the R6 trial, rather than the R6Ii as that is most likely the camera I would buy.

I booked a courier to take the Sigma adapter back after 10 minutes of trying it.
 
Last edited:
I use the a73 and 4's professionally and my wife uses the canon r6's professionally and the canon out performs the sonys in every single way ...apart from noise at high iso but the Sony is only marginally better .
 
As for the money, I’m purely amateur so funds come from me putting a little aside each month till I can afford the thing I want. It’s not going through a business.
For clarification; my question was more ‘are you needing to sell some gear to fund the purchase, which puts a different slant on any ‘upgrade’.
 
For clarification; my question was more ‘are you needing to sell some gear to fund the purchase, which puts a different slant on any ‘upgrade’.

To be honest, sometimes it’s both.

Sometimes I save up till I can afford it, sometimes I’ll sell something to part-fund it.
 
I use the a73 and 4's professionally and my wife uses the canon r6's professionally and the canon out performs the sonys in every single way ...apart from noise at high iso but the Sony is only marginally better .
Not really a like for like comparison. Sony a7iii is two years older than R6 and R6 sells for a fair bit more than Sony A7iii.
 
I also mentioned the a74 if you re read
Ah fair, must have gone blind. Just read the A73 part, missed "and 4".

Had the a7iv, personally felt it was really great. I have only used the R5, for the body on its own I'd pick the R5 any day.
 
Last edited:
Co
mirrorless is the way to go! would you ever consider the r5?
Considered it? Absolutely.

I've pretty much always shot on Canon since going DSLR. And always assumed my next big move would be to go mirrorless and save up for an R6 or even an R5. Then slowly upgrade the lenses when I can afford to do so.

It's still not off the table TBH.
 
As a long term Canon user, I've got a selection of lenses to go with it. I've put one foot in the mirrorless camp with an R7 replacing the 7D MkII, and when the 1DX II pops its clogs, then I'll have to make a decision on what to do, either look out for a 1DX III or move fully into mirrorless.

Once I'm fully in the mirrorless camp, I will start replacing the EF lenses with RF versions over time.
 
R1 was announced this morning.
As a long term Canon user, I've got a selection of lenses to go with it. I've put one foot in the mirrorless camp with an R7 replacing the 7D MkII, and when the 1DX II pops its clogs, then I'll have to make a decision on what to do, either look out for a 1DX III or move fully into mirrorless.

Once I'm fully in the mirrorless camp, I will start replacing the EF lenses with RF versions over time.
 
Last edited:
I had an A7S and EF lenses like probably on the Sony A7 Mk 1 via the Sigma MC-11 were painfully slow (3-4s to acquire focus if at all). I then got a Sony A9 and the difference was night and day, hardly distinguishable from the Sony native lenses I've tried and subject detect worked fine. I actually found the EF lenses to perform better in some cases in terms of sharpness and rendering than native e mount lenses.
 
I had an A7S and EF lenses like probably on the Sony A7 Mk 1 via the Sigma MC-11 were painfully slow (3-4s to acquire focus if at all). I then got a Sony A9 and the difference was night and day, hardly distinguishable from the Sony native lenses I've tried and subject detect worked fine. I actually found the EF lenses to perform better in some cases in terms of sharpness and rendering than native e mount lenses.

That’s thrown a spanner in the works.
 
Thanks to all for the advice.

Decision made...

I was just browsing t'internet and noticed that Clifton Cameras had three MKII R6s for £1,999 (that's each, not for all three).

I was going to wait until next month as I thought I'd have the money for a SH one as I will have been in my current role for 20 years and am expecting a little bonus.

But it seemed like too good a deal to miss.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top