Canon 5d Mark iii vs sony a7r ii

[Sebastian Kurpiel]

Hey guys, 

I have two great deals to pick from atm...

I have a sony a7rii for $1,940. It comes with a Sel24240, extra batteries and an sd card, scratches on the part where the flash connects to...( I think it's called a hot connection) My next deal is a Canon 5d for $1840 that comes with a nice lower pro bag, sd cards, a smaller 25mm lens, and a couple of batteries. The shutter count on the Mark iii is 70k(practically perfect condition on the body) and I'm not sure about the shutter count on the a7rii, do mirrorless cameras have shutter counts?

 

My dilemma comes from that I don't know which one to go with, I have only shot with the mark iii before and it's awesome, but the idea of buying another lenses makes it seem not worth it considering the a7rii comes with a better all around lense. But I have heard that the viewfinder isn't as good as a normal DSLR considering it's an LCD...What are your guys opinions on the two?

 

[thekillergazebo]

Well what do you plan on shooting?

[cc143]

I am intimately familiar with both cameras, and given the choice I went with the Canon, although I did have a number of lenses already which influenced my decision.

 

I should also say at this point that I'm not sure the Canon is priced low enough, don't think the Sony is either. I'd expect Canon's prices to come down in anticipation of the eos r announcement tomorrow since many people are probably either switching to that or to a sony a7iii body or something.

 

So, the 24-240 isn't that good a lens I think, and on a 45mp sensor, that will show. Keeping that in mind, You could go with either, and each has its advantages. The reasons I personally went with the Canon over the Sony were:

 

2 card slots (1 was CF as well).

Cheaper glass selection

Better ergonomics

Better battery life (By a very long margin mind you, you'd probably have to carry five to match the Canon)

Adapter didn't really work that well and at the time the sony system was really lacking, now, for my needs, not so much.

Size when factoring in similar glass is surprisingly similar.

The sony felt simply more fragile

EVF was lackluster, I prefered my OVF. Mind you, I have no particular issue with Fuji's evfs.

 

So overall, wait till Friday. I have a sense that used prices might experience a significant drop at that point, or who knows, Canon may release a good enough camera to consider or have an impact on the marketplace for once.

[Sebastian Kurpiel]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

I am intimately familiar with both cameras, and given the choice I went with the Canon, although I did have a number of lenses already which influenced my decision.

 

I should also say at this point that I'm not sure the Canon is priced low enough, don't think the Sony is either. I'd expect Canon's prices to come down in anticipation of the eos r announcement tomorrow since many people are probably either switching to that or to a sony a7iii body or something.

 

So, the 24-240 isn't that good a lens I think, and on a 45mp sensor, that will show. Keeping that in mind, You could go with either, and each has its advantages. The reasons I personally went with the Canon over the Sony were:

 

2 card slots (1 was CF as well).

Cheaper glass selection

Better ergonomics

Better battery life (By a very long margin mind you, you'd probably have to carry five to match the Canon)

Adapter didn't really work that well and at the time the sony system was really lacking, now, for my needs, not so much.

Size when factoring in similar glass is surprisingly similar.

The sony felt simply more fragile

EVF was lackluster, I prefered my OVF. Mind you, I have no particular issue with Fuji's evfs.

 

So overall, wait till Friday. I have a sense that used prices might experience a significant drop at that point, or who knows, Canon may release a good enough camera to consider or have an impact on the marketplace for once.

Thank you! I haven't been keeping up with the news!

[xQubeZx]

What will you shoot? If you are doing sports or action photography the 5D is the obvious choice. But if you are doing landscapes and portrait I’d steer towards the A7 because of the raw image quality and eye af. 

 

Either way, both are good cameras, however a little much to ask for them used. The 24-240 lens is said to be decent but nothing amazing really so I’d try to get it without that and get a better lens instead. 

[wackomann]

It might be worth checking out the just announced Canon EOS R - it's mirrorless and to compete with the Sony cameras with similar specs to the 5D MK IV 

[YellowJersey]

I'm not crazy about either of those options, especially if those prices are in USD. The 5D mkIII is a fantastic camera (I shot with one for many years), but the sensor is really lagging behind these days. The A7rII has amazing image quality, but it definitely has some usability quirks and you'll want really good glass if you're going to be using such a high resolution sensor.

5DmkIII

Pros:

-solid and rugged build (I put mine through hell and it always kept up)

-better autofocus

-two card slots

-fantastic battery life

 

Cons:

-very outdated sensor

-no IBIS

-no EVF

-no articulating screen

-bigger and heavier

-very limited video features

 

A7rII

Pros:

-fantastic sensor

-IBIS

-EVF

-tilty screen

-smaller/lighter

-better video features

 

Cons:

-not as ruggedly built

-autofocus is meh, but far from great

-single card slot

-battery life not great

-no joystick to select autofocus point

 

Again, at those prices, I don't think you're getting that great a deal. I think if you're looking in that price range, I'd check out a Sony A7III w/ 28-70mm kit lens ($2200 USD new). Here's why:

-24MP sensor will do much better in low light than the A7rII

 

-24MP sensor means you don't have to put super expensive glass in front of it to get good image quality (the higher the sensor's resolution, the better optics are needed as tiny flaws show up that wouldn't otherwise be apparent in lower resolution sensors)

 

-sensor will blow the 5DmkIII out of the water (The 5DmkIII's dynamic range is pretty limited and I was always having to use graduated ND filters to balance exposures. I shoot with an A7rIII now, which has similar dynamic range to the A7rII, and I don't blow my highlights any more and am more able to recover shadows)

 

-autofocus is WAY better than either the A7rII or the 5DmkIII

-Z-type battery is WAY better than the A7rII's battery, but not as good as the 5DkIII's battery

-all the usual Sony benefits like EVF, eye tracking, IBIS, smaller, lighter, etc
 

[cc143]

I will also add, maybe look at the fuji xt3. I think that the benefit of the smaller body and lenses without sacrificing quality, coupled with great build quality make it a contender amongst FF cameras. 

 

The build is better than the sony, ergonomics as well, glass is cheaper and outstanding all around, it is highly capable, and honestly, if you can shoot at 8000ISO and have 26mp resolution, its more than enough for most. 

[YellowJersey]

20 hours ago, cc143 said:

I will also add, maybe look at the fuji xt3. I think that the benefit of the smaller body and lenses without sacrificing quality, coupled with great build quality make it a contender amongst FF cameras. 

 

The build is better than the sony, ergonomics as well, glass is cheaper and outstanding all around, it is highly capable, and honestly, if you can shoot at 8000ISO and have 26mp resolution, its more than enough for most. 

I was thinking about Fuji the other night. IMHO, it's the best all-round camera that really hits a sweat spot in the market. If you're looking at mirrorless, then the XT-2/XT-3 should be the starting point and only go with another camera if your specific use-case would be better suited by it (like a GH5 or A7sII if you're into video, D850 or A7rIII if you like to print big or crop in a lot, A9/D5/1Dx2 if you need speed, etc)