A7ii vs 5Diii

[Hackentosher]

Hey guys, I'm starting to feel the limits of my canon T5. Not a lot of control, terrible low light performance, cropped sensor, etc. I've been eyeing the Sony A7 cameras for a while, but I also do like Canon's color science and I have a couple (albeit not very fancy) Canon lenses. I'm looking to spend about $1000, and I can get a new A7ii with a 28-70 kit lens for $1200, and I've seen some examples on ebay for $500-900. I cannot get a 5d3 for anywhere near that price, they're still going for almost $3000, body only. Used, I've seen examples from $600-1500 body only. 

 

I know the Canon is a staple, it's a workhorse, and I'm sorta bitten into their ecosystem, but I'm not married to it. The 5D is heavy, and Canon accessories are expensive, but they're everywhere and easy to get. The Sony is a bit more of a question mark for me. I don't know too much about the a7II and how it shoots. I remember hearing that early A7 bodies suffered from poor battery life. That is a shame, but I don't really care because I like shooting with a grip anyway. I also would really like to see how my exposure would look in the viewfinder, which is what makes mirrorless bodies so appealing to me. Beyond that, that's about as much as I know about the camera. Either way, I would be in for a massive upgrade, but I want to know what people think.

[cc143]

The Sony system is more expensive all things considered. As far as bodies are concerned, I was in kind of the same boat as you 3 years ago when my previous cameras shutter failed and I wanted a new one, so I thought why not go FF. 

 

I tested out both, I ended up going with the 5d3, the a7ii has some better specs, like IBIS, a slight resolution advantage, DR etc. But the 5d3 is mch more reliable and ergonomics are amazing VS the a7ii being pretty much horrendous. The battery life was also a major point for me and the added beenfit of 2 card slots. Also, adpated lenses barely worked on that sensor, the a7rii is the one where they finally got it somewhat right. 

 

All in all, I'd have gone with the 5d3 again. Its an amazing camera, it does everything I need and more. There's often stuff I want, like more resolution, more fps, a deeper buffer, a touchscreen, wifi etc. but its not like I'd get all that with the a7ii either, but shor of moving to a 5d4 and compromising even then...its a great camera it will serve you well.  

[Hackentosher]

5 hours ago, cc143 said:

Snip .  

Good point about the ergonomics, I didn't even consider that. The A7 is a bit of a brick, and I tend to run and gun when I shoot. I like to carry my camera in my hand with a wrist strap instead of letting it hang around my neck. How heavy does that 5d feel after a couple hours of lugging it around? I think the reduced weight of the Sony may be advantageous.

 

When I said the Sony system was cheaper, I was referring to the used market. Their g master lenses are about as expensive, if not more so, than Canon L glass. I'm not very bought in to the Canon system though, I only have the two kit lenses that came with my T5, and a 24mm 2.8. I'm not really opposed to buying Sony glass. 

 

One of the biggest things I'm looking for in my next body is a quiet shutter. I don't know why, but Canon cheaped out on the shutter mechanism for the T5 line, so instead of nice little clicks, the damn thing sounds like a construction site every time you release the shutter. The fact that the A7 can shoot completely silently is very appealing to me. I'm also going from a very entry level cropped body to a semi pro FF. I'm certain either one will serve me well, I'm just really interested in the EVF and silent shutters of mirror less systems. 

 

I wish there was a way I could take both out for a day and see which I liked more. Maybe my local camera shop will lend them out. 

 

edit: Crap, the A7ii doesn't have a silent shutter mode, only the A7rii and above. I may be able to swing for the R, but not any time soon. It would also cut into my glass budget.

[cc143]

2 hours ago, Hackentosher said:

Good point about the ergonomics, I didn't even consider that. The A7 is a bit of a brick, and I tend to run and gun when I shoot. I like to carry my camera in my hand with a wrist strap instead of letting it hang around my neck. How heavy does that 5d feel after a couple hours of lugging it around? I think the reduced weight of the Sony may be advantageous.

 

When I said the Sony system was cheaper, I was referring to the used market. Their g master lenses are about as expensive, if not more so, than Canon L glass. I'm not very bought in to the Canon system though, I only have the two kit lenses that came with my T5, and a 24mm 2.8. I'm not really opposed to buying Sony glass. 

 

One of the biggest things I'm looking for in my next body is a quiet shutter. I don't know why, but Canon cheaped out on the shutter mechanism for the T5 line, so instead of nice little clicks, the damn thing sounds like a construction site every time you release the shutter. The fact that the A7 can shoot completely silently is very appealing to me. I'm also going from a very entry level cropped body to a semi pro FF. I'm certain either one will serve me well, I'm just really interested in the EVF and silent shutters of mirror less systems. 

 

I wish there was a way I could take both out for a day and see which I liked more. Maybe my local camera shoiip will lend them out. 

I've shot 3-4hour concerts with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and I can't say I felt it a lot, because the grip is so comfortable, I prefer using it over long periods vs my xt2 if I'm not hanging it around my shoulder or neck, when I am the weight advantage of the xt2 is indeed apparent. The xt2 is much more comfortable to travel with as well, coupled with a 23mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 its possibly the best travel camera around. Trust me, the Canon's grip is sublime, it fits into my hands perfectly, every button etc. is exactly where it should be, I don't need to take my eye off the VF any more at all. Coupled with a 24-105mm the weight distribution is just perfect and because its more substantial its much more comfortable with heavier glass. 

 

Well, sure the body will be, but the majority of the cost is in glass, and with the rf system now out, the ef glass in the used market is a hell of a great deal. The a7 was always cheap used, The original was available for around £500 for quite some time and the a7ii isn't really that much more, but you can get a 5d for £250 more than that? I got mine for £1100 3 years ago with all original accessories, in pristine condition with about 3K clicks (must have been used more for video though). The overall cost to get equivalent sony glass will more than cover the differential in body prices. 

 

The silent option on the Canon is as quiet as it can get. I'm not sure if the a7ii has an electronic shutter at all, and if it does how it performs with banding etc. to be honest, but I always hated the sound of Sony shutters, they always sound broken to me, while Canon Nikon and even fuji sound much smoother. Sure, a dslr can't shoot completely silently, but the silent shutter does improve a lot and in a noisy environment, like a busy street, subjects don't even notice. 

 

I don't know about the EVF, most people swear by them, I have been lucky enough to use one of the best in the industry at the time with the xt2 and still prefer my old trusty OVF over that, but then again, I'm set in my ways since the days of film and I use liveview to shoot most of my landscape shots anyway. I don't have the issue with exposure, I'm used to using my lightmeter anyway, but I would like to have a level or peaking overlay, but still, prefer the OVF overall, again, I am in the minority in that regard though. The a7ii is not semi pro even, a FF sensor doesn't make a camera professional, the surrounding ecosystem, reliability, ergonomics, redundancy, battery life, weather sealing, all of those things do and in those areas, the 5d3 isn't semi pro, its full on professional. The range has been the camera of choice for a while now and there's a reason for that. Then again, I don't see why an enthusiast or amateur necessarily need all of these, or even why a pro can't shoot professionally with what is technically classed as a non pro camera. Camera technology is pretty good these days, you most certainly can do it. 

 

Depending on where you live you can try rental services, but these are old bodies, its quite unlikely you'd find them available for rental and it would cost. I can see many reasons personally why the a7ii might be infuriating to use, there are some for the 5d3, but the a7ii did appear to me to be much more of a pain, while the Canon...I'll say this, I have had my xt2 for a while and love using it. The sensor difference aside, because it really doesn't matter that much, I find the 5d3 much more conducinve to better results than the xt2, I don't know why, I can't justify it, but I like the results more and have a much better hit rate  with the Canon.

[Hackentosher]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

Snip .

That's very informative. There's no question the 5d iii is a great body for ever situation, I'm certainly considering it. There's also the 6d II, which I have found for fairly inexpensive on the used market. From what I have seen, it's about the same camera, but features GPS tagging and a flip out screen, but at a reduced price. 

[cc143]

Just now, Hackentosher said:

That's very informative. There's no question the 5d iii is a great body for ever situation, I'm certainly considering it. There's also the 6d II, which I have found for fairly inexpensive on the used market. From what I have seen, it's about the same camera, but features GPS tagging and a flip out screen, but at a reduced price. 

Yes and its alos lighter but it has other drawbacks, most notably the AF points, which are concentrated in the middle of the frame and are quite a pain to use. 

 

You could also look for an eos r or an eos rp if you want, they are much better in terms of ergonomics, I have found quite cheap deals in ebay in the uk, some even coupled with the reportedly excellent RF 24-105mm L, battery on the r is the same as most canon dslrs (x0d series and up though) and you can get adapters bundled with them as well, enabling you to use both ef and rf lenses interchangeably. They have drawbacks, but could be an overall great compromise. 

[Hackentosher]

16 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Yes and its alos lighter but it has other drawbacks, most notably the AF points, which are concentrated in the middle of the frame and are quite a pain to use. 

 

You could also look for an eos r or an eos rp if you want, they are much better in terms of ergonomics, I have found quite cheap deals in ebay in the uk, some even coupled with the reportedly excellent RF 24-105mm L, battery on the r is the same as most canon dslrs (x0d series and up though) and you can get adapters bundled with them as well, enabling you to use both ef and rf lenses interchangeably. They have drawbacks, but could be an overall great compromise. 

I'm pretty used to shit AF points, the T5 has 9 (?) AF points so any upgrade is appreciated. 

 

I don't think the EOS R is a good choice, but perhaps the RP. $1200 is a lot for a body only, especially with what's on the used market. The glass I have is not very good, so I don't really want to bottleneck the full frame sensor

 

I just looked at my local camera shop, and you were right: They do not rent the 5d iii or the a7ii. Interestingly, they do rent out the 5dii though. Even more interesting, they have three used A7ii bodies listed, one with the Sony battery grip for $800, another body only for $600. Granted, there's no information about their condition online, but they're a local shop that I trust a hell of a lot more than some schmuck on ebay or another online re-seller. They unfortunately only have one canon full frame body, a 5diii for $1400.

[cc143]

53 minutes ago, Hackentosher said:

I'm pretty used to shit AF points, the T5 has 9 (?) AF points so any upgrade is appreciated. 

 

I don't think the EOS R is a good choice, but perhaps the RP. $1200 is a lot for a body only, especially with what's on the used market. The glass I have is not very good, so I don't really want to bottleneck the full frame sensor

 

I just looked at my local camera shop, and you were right: They do not rent the 5d iii or the a7ii. Interestingly, they do rent out the 5dii though. Even more interesting, they have three used A7ii bodies listed, one with the Sony battery grip for $800, another body only for $600. Granted, there's no information about their condition online, but they're a local shop that I trust a hell of a lot more than some schmuck on ebay or another online re-seller. They unfortunately only have one canon full frame body, a 5diii for $1400.

I'm sure there are reputable used camera dealers you could go for although ebay is the best place to find a bargain usually. 

 

The 6d2 has a FF sensor and the AF system off whats essentially the 80d, I used to have a system similar to yours and my 1st dslr had 3, trust me the 6d2 is bad in that regard. 

 

As far as the r, its a very capable body and if you find deals like ones I've seen on ebay, I don't see why not. There's legitimate criticsms for it, but I've found it for £2000 with a 24-105mm and adapter. Thats a great deal period. What I really don't like about the rp is the battery, its just too weak, other than that great concept. 

[LyondellBasell]

17 hours ago, Hackentosher said:

Hey guys, I'm starting to feel the limits of my canon T5. Not a lot of control, terrible low light performance, cropped sensor, etc. I've been eyeing the Sony A7 cameras for a while, but I also do like Canon's color science and I have a couple (albeit not very fancy) Canon lenses. 

 

I know the Canon is a staple, it's a workhorse, and I'm sorta bitten into their ecosystem, but I'm not married to it. The 5D is heavy, and Canon accessories are expensive, but they're everywhere and easy to get. The Sony is a bit more of a question mark for me. I don't know too much about the a7II and how it shoots. I remember hearing that early A7 bodies suffered from poor battery life. That is a shame, but I don't really care because I like shooting with a grip anyway. I also would really like to see how my exposure would look in the viewfinder, which is what makes mirrorless bodies so appealing to me. Beyond that, that's about as much as I know about the camera. Either way, I would be in for a massive upgrade, but I want to know what people think.

As far as the color science goes, are you shooting in raw or jpeg? I know alot of people prefer Canon's color as far as skin tones go, but that only applies if you're not shooting raw.

Raw between different camera brands is pretty much equivalent, in regards to color, since there's no processing being done by the camera.

 

That being said, I would take cc's advice and check out the EOS R.

It has the full size battery so it doesn't suffer like the RP, and it's very nicely sized.

If you absolutely need the focusing speed that only a DSLR can provide, then go ahead and go for that 5D3/5D4.

I own the R and I've never encountered an issue of missing focus because it's too slow, but the fastest sport I've shot is men's track so my claim is purely anecdotal and I guarantee the 1DXMkII is superior in that regard.

 

Happy to answer any more questions about the R, best of luck on your new pick!

[Hackentosher]

4 hours ago, LyondellBasell said:

Snip

Always RAW

 

Yeah an EOS R would be nice, but those are still like $2k on ebay, and the rp is $1200 body only. I'm looking to spend under $1000 on the body leaving budget for some upgraded glass, so I don't think Canon's mirrorless system is the best option for me. If I do go Canon, I think the 5 or 6d is a better option from a budget perspective. 

[Hackentosher]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

I'm sure there are reputable used camera dealers you could go for although ebay is the best place to find a bargain usually. 

 

The 6d2 has a FF sensor and the AF system off whats essentially the 80d, I used to have a system similar to yours and my 1st dslr had 3, trust me the 6d2 is bad in that regard. 

 

As far as the r, its a very capable body and if you find deals like ones I've seen on ebay, I don't see why not. There's legitimate criticsms for it, but I've found it for £2000 with a 24-105mm and adapter. Thats a great deal period. What I really don't like about the rp is the battery, its just too weak, other than that great concept. 

Ebay just gives me a bit of anxiety because of the risk associated with anonymous sellers for a large purchase. 

 

Seriously? The 6dii's AF is worse than an entry level dslr? 

 

That's an L series lens, right? Doesn't matter, $2640 USD is 220% of my expected upgrade budget. That's just out of the question. 

[LyondellBasell]

25 minutes ago, Hackentosher said:

Ebay just gives me a bit of anxiety because of the risk associated with anonymous sellers for a large purchase. 

 

Seriously? The 6dii's AF is worse than an entry level dslr? 

 

That's an L series lens, right? Doesn't matter, $2640 USD is 220% of my expected upgrade budget. That's just out of the question. 

Always the risk you might end up with a box of rocks and an empty paypal account haha

 

It's not worse, but it's like a crayon to the 5DIV's Montblanc of a system.

 

It's an L series, but not on the same level as something like the 28-70 RF.

[bob345]

If you're mainly going for photos' i might just go with a 6dmkII and spend the rest on lenses instead of a body. Maybe even the eos rp as it seems pretty great as a stills camera. I was recently in the same boat as you deciding between going Sony or cannon and ended up picking up a used 6d for super cheap from adorama camera and getting a few nice lenses.

[cc143]

7 hours ago, Hackentosher said:

Ebay just gives me a bit of anxiety because of the risk associated with anonymous sellers for a large purchase. 

 

Seriously? The 6dii's AF is worse than an entry level dslr? 

 

That's an L series lens, right? Doesn't matter, $2640 USD is 220% of my expected upgrade budget. That's just out of the question. 

Its technically not, it has 45 AF points, its just that on a crop sensor they take up more of the frame, which is often just as important.

[Hackentosher]

12 hours ago, bob345 said:

If you're mainly going for photos' i might just go with a 6dmkII and spend the rest on lenses instead of a body. Maybe even the eos rp as it seems pretty great as a stills camera. I was recently in the same boat as you deciding between going Sony or cannon and ended up picking up a used 6d for super cheap from adorama camera and getting a few nice lenses.

Might be a good idea those are pretty cheap. Isn't an a7ii a bit more camera for $100 more used? Plus it's a lot newer.

[cc143]

4 hours ago, Hackentosher said:

Might be a good idea those are pretty cheap. Isn't an a7ii a bit more camera for $100 more used? Plus it's a lot newer.

It's certainly not much more camera, its newer, but I'd take the 6d over the a7ii, the lens system alone sells it for me and you can upgrade in due course anyway. 

 

[bob345]

7 hours ago, Hackentosher said:

Might be a good idea those are pretty cheap. Isn't an a7ii a bit more camera for $100 more used? Plus it's a lot newer.

If you're going for stills, id say the canon would be better as its just so much more refined than the a7. The sensor on the a7 should be a bit better when it comes to dynamic range, but in reality you will almost never notice the difference in actual use. I would only get the sony if you are seriously planning on investing in sony glass.

[Hackentosher]

41 minutes ago, bob345 said:

If you're going for stills, id say the canon would be better as its just so much more refined than the a7. The sensor on the a7 should be a bit better when it comes to dynamic range, but in reality you will almost never notice the difference in actual use. I would only get the sony if you are seriously planning on investing in sony glass.

well I don't mind investing in Sony glass, what's really keeping me interested in the Sonys right now is they are significantly cheaper than canon counterparts on the used market, with the exception of the 6d mk1. I'll do some more research on the 6D.

[cc143]

14 hours ago, Hackentosher said:

well I don't mind investing in Sony glass, what's really keeping me interested in the Sonys right now is they are significantly cheaper than canon counterparts on the used market, with the exception of the 6d mk1. I'll do some more research on the 6D.

As I said earlier, you are going to more than pay for that price differential in the body when buying the glass. The Sonys just strated getting cheaper glass from tamron and sigma, and there's so much older EF glass out there, nevermind the actual current L glass that sells at a 40-50% discount in the used market because so many idiots believe the DSLR is dead and are buying into Sony instead. The truth is, DSLRs are still very capable, and in some instances you would see very little actual difference adapting the EF or F mount glass to Canon or Nikon mirrorless cameras once they become more competitive in a couple of generations time.

 

If not, if you buy the lenses used anyway, your loss when selling them will be much less anyway and you can keep them until you can justify or can finance a proper kit from another manufacturer, whether that is Sony or anyone else in the future. I mean, prices are already very low, you can't lose more than 10-20% on them when you sell. 

[Hackentosher]

I've decided the Canon 6d is the best choice for my next body. It's about the same price on the used market, and there's a larger market for used glass as well. Thanks to @cc143 and @bob345 for the suggestions and advice. I still long for the advantages of mirror less cameras, but I am no where near in the financial status to afford the more refined Sony mirror less cameras and glass. 

[D13H4RD]

Canon's still the safe bet if you're after a wide range of affordable glass. 

 

The Sony is technically the more capable body, but the price of native Sony glass can shock you at times. 

 

It's important to look at the system as a whole, not just any one aspect of it. 

[Hackentosher]

13 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Canon's still the safe bet if you're after a wide range of affordable glass. 

 

The Sony is technically the more capable body, but the price of native Sony glass can shock you at times. 

 

It's important to look at the system as a whole, not just any one aspect of it. 

I took a step back and realized the most annoying parts of my current body is the loud as hell shutter, and the terrible low light performance (it really shouldn't be breaking up at 800 ISO). The 6D has some of the best low light performance on the market, and a very quiet shutter as well. It's the logical choice over the sexier A7.

 

Quality glass is expensive. There's no way around that, but there's a larger market for used Canon glass just because it's an older and more popular system. So if we whip out the ol supply vs demand graph... Yeah Canon makes more sense from a penny pincher's perspective.

[D13H4RD]

41 minutes ago, Hackentosher said:

I took a step back and realized the most annoying parts of my current body is the loud as hell shutter, and the terrible low light performance (it really shouldn't be breaking up at 800 ISO). The 6D has some of the best low light performance on the market, and a very quiet shutter as well. It's the logical choice over the sexier A7.

 

Quality glass is expensive. There's no way around that, but there's a larger market for used Canon glass just because it's an older and more popular system. So if we whip out the ol supply vs demand graph... Yeah Canon makes more sense from a penny pincher's perspective.

No surprise that the Canon 6D works better in low light, given its larger sensor, which helps it work better at higher ISOs. Wouldn't say it's one of the very best on the market right now tbh, mostly due to advancements in sensor tech in competitors since, but it definitely works quite a bit better than your current body. 

 

Only weakness is the rather shallow DR at lower ISOs, at least compared to current generation sensors. I wouldn't call it an absolute deal-breaker, however, just more of something to take note of when you're out shooting. 

 

Glass is what you ideally should be focusing on once you get a body that's decently capable for your needs. While I personally prefer some competitors' offerings, I think the 6D ought to do you more than fine (6Dii, I reckon). It's not glamorous, but it gets the job done more than well enough and is capable of some nice shots with the right hands and the right glass.