Sony vs Canon for hobbyist

lekhangaroo

lekhangaroo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
66
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I bought a Canon 600D, my very first DSLR camera, as a hobbyst about 10 years ago and I am now looking to upgrade it. I used it extensively at the beginning, taking it out in the parks and at some events, but slowly abandoned it in recent years at the expense of my iPhone, except for lengthy holidays and big travel destinations. I think phone cameras do a pretty decent job nowadays at capturing lots of great moments, especially in good lighting conditions. However, there have been many times where I was left pretty unhappy not to have a better camera with me, especially with some of Apple's photo auto-processing, in low light conditions. I am aware I can take photos in proRAW format with my phone but I played around with a friend's full-frame mirrorless camera (Canon EOS R6) recently and was pretty amazed by the colours, sharpness, high dynamic range and the fast AF (when taking photos of animals in motion).

I am now considering getting a full-frame camera that I would be taking out more often with me to take candid photos and I am hesitating between Canon's and Sony's ecosystems. I will be moving from a DSLR APS-C so I don't have any "old" Canon EF lenses I can take over. I will have to invest into a completely new system and I am thinking of either getting the Sony A7 IV or one of the Canon EOS R, R6 or R8. The Canon bodies I have in mind are slightly cheaper than the Sony A7 IV. However the RF lenses are a tiny bit more expensive than Sony's native lenses and they are also bulkier and heavier. As a hobbyist, I would also consider 3rd party glasses as they are much cheaper than Sony's G and GM glasses.

I will try to buy everything second-hand as a long term investment and would be keen on getting an ultra-wide angle lens zoom first to pair with my new camera. Here are my options:
- Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 GM (~£1200)
- Tamron 17-28 mm f/2.8 Di III RXD (~£550)
- Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DG DN (~£700)
- RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L IS USM (if I pick Canon) (~£1400)

I will mainly be using the camera and lens for landscapes when I'm traveling and for family/friends events with the occasional portrait photography here and there.
I think I will ultimately rent the A7 IV for a day or two to see how it quickly compares to my friend's R6 (which I only have a very short experience with) but I would appreciate your feedback as well, especially the one from those who have extensive experience with both ecosystems.

Thank you very much !
 
Very pleased that you plan to try the Sony for a day or two before buying. Otherwise I would suggest that since you have handled the Canon and liked it, why wouldn't go down that path.
 
Hi pa, welcome,

The short answer is both are incredible setups that far exceed what we need 99% of the time unless you're into specific genres like sport or wildlife. With your lens choice it doesn't look like thats you.

Unless you intend to print massively big or want fine in depth detail for landscapes then one of the lower MP bodies will probably be a better bet.

You'll get loads of responses probably with shooters of both systems saying how great their system is - and they will be right! All the setups you're considering as superb.

Short version is go and try them out in your hands, the Canon is probably an easier system to get to grips with due to the menus but the results will be virtually identical

Mike
 
One thing to consider is that canon is currently not allowing third parties to make lenses for RF mount.
On the other hand Sony has a lot many options from both 1st party and 3rd party. Also the used market has a lot more options.

In terms of cameras themselves they are all pretty capable these days.
 
I moved from a Canon DSLR to Sony a7iii a few years ago, I'm a hobbyist too and was trying to reduce the size of my kit. Definitely hasn't worked so far :D At the time, I didn't feel like the Canon system offered the choice in lenses etc, and was hearing very good things about Sony, so made the jump.

The R6 and A7iv are both super capable in their own right so without getting into nitty gritty details, you won't see too much difference in the end results. You're already doing the right thing by taking both for a test drive. Make a note of the ergonomics, see which one feels best in the hand. If it doesn't feel right after an hour or so, it won't get better!

@nandbytes makes a good point re lenses, eg Sigma do some brilliant alternatives to the Sony gear, depending how you feel about budget.
 
As mentioned above by @pooley I'd suggest Sony are the best because....... :ROFLMAO:

But in all seriousness ( taking into account the 3rd party lenses thing as noted by @nandbytes ) with the sort of budget you sound like you have I don't think you can go far wrong with a A7iii & a couple of the Tamron f/2.8 zooms. Nice starter kit if you don't want to get into GM primes.
 
@Boots, @pooley, thanks for getting back to me. I understand that both systems are good so the plan will be try to both cameras of course to see what ergonomics I prefer - I won't have time to try both systems in depth though, hence why I came here for opinions from people with a lot more expertise. :D

@pooley, I'm actually going to go on a safari at the end of the year. Do the (small) difference in AF and FPS make that much of a difference between the R6 and the A7 IV ? The RF 100-400mm from Canon actually looks really nice for that and there is no equivalent in the Sony ecosystem (weight and compactness wise). I guess both will be massive upgrades to my old DSLR but I wonder whether the difference when it comes to wildlife/sports photography is that noticeable or not. I still managed to take some decent photos of big cats and even birds (when the conditions were right) with my Canon 600D and a Canon EF-S 55-250mm while I was in South Africa a few years ago so I get that it's just a "tool" at the end of the day but when I tried taking some photos of a dog running towards me with my friend's R6, it was just so much "easier" to have it in focus and the image to be sharp.

@nandbytes, @LeeRatters, that is my main concern with Canon. They seem to have locked in their RF system against 3rd party lenses (for now) and their zooms are pretty expensive (and bulky). That is the main reason why I started looking at other ecosystems.

@chphoto Ah really, you haven't managed to reduce the size of your kit ? I've found that the Sony A7 IV is slightly smaller but weighs roughly the same as the R6. The Sony lenses seem to be smaller and lighter than the RF equivalent though. For example, the Sony FE 16-35 mm f/2.8 weighs 680g whereas the equivalent RF 15-35mm f/2.8 weighs 840g. The Sigma and Tamron, which both have slightly shorter focal length and stop at 28mm, weigh ~450g.
 
Not by much!! I went from a crop DSLR with a 17-55 f2.8 as my main lens, to full frame mirrorless with 24-105 f4. The lenses are about the same weight, although the Sony body is physically a bit smaller.

I also had Canon 50mm f1.4 which was a nice size and weighed under 300g, the new generation of f1.4 primes seem to be huge. I guess it’s partly to do with the lack of mirror in the bodies, the sensor is closer to the back of the lens, so lenses often need to be made that little bit ‘longer’ to accommodate?
 
I have a similar setup at the moment, a crop DSLR with a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Really excited to move to a full frame one :) In terms of size, I think I'll be pretty happy if my new setup has kind of the same dimensions and weight (unless I put on a telezoom which will obviously be bigger and heavier) or is a tiny bit bulkier. I'm pretty happy that most mirrorless cameras are much smaller than their full frame DSLR counterpart.
 
lekhangaroo said:
@pooley, I'm actually going to go on a safari at the end of the year. Do the (small) difference in AF and FPS make that much of a difference between the R6 and the A7 IV ? The RF 100-400mm from Canon actually looks really nice for that and there is no equivalent in the Sony ecosystem (weight and compactness wise). I guess both will be massive upgrades to my old DSLR but I wonder whether the difference when it comes to wildlife/sports photography is that noticeable or not. I still managed to take some decent photos of big cats and even birds (when the conditions were right) with my Canon 600D and a Canon EF-S 55-250mm while I was in South Africa a few years ago so I get that it's just a "tool" at the end of the day but when I tried taking some photos of a dog running towards me with my friend's R6, it was just so much "easier" to have it in focus and the image to be sharp.
Click to expand...

I've had an R5 in the past and a Sony A1 so thats where me experience is regarding the AF. Both systems are superb, and the Sony A1 is the best focussing wildlife camera around. But its a very close run thing including knowledge in setting the camera up, personal technique, ability and a few other bits.

For animals on Safari, I'd actually go with the R6 out of that pair. The edge in low light ability, AF is plenty good enough for the big cats, and is no slouch with birds either. I always loved my Canon 100-400 ii, have had 2 copies and they were both top drawer. I'd take that over the RF 100-500 personally.

Like I say, I have an A1 and its simply an awesome camera. However, after years of Canon and a short dalliance with Nikon, it still doesn't feel right in my hands - I think I was too ingrained in Canon, so if I don't use it for a while, which is normal for me, I do end up missing shots fiddling around with what should be easy alterations. That said, once the camera is set up for safari I don't think either camera would require too much fiddling with until you returned home.

What I can say with absolute certainty is either model will blow away the AF of your 600D. Night and day.

Mike
 
andrewc said:
Canon's RF - EF adaptor allows almost seamless use of their back catalogue of EF lenses and third party lenses.
Click to expand...
This^
It’s utter nonsense that Sony gives more choice of lenses. There are literally thousands of EF lenses out there that’ll work perfectly on the R6.
 
Phil V said:
This^
It’s utter nonsense that Sony gives more choice of lenses. There are literally thousands of EF lenses out there that’ll work perfectly on the R6.
Click to expand...
Seconded. They work great don't they! I've even been enjoying using the 200 2.8 L on my Nikon Z7 too which works perfectly (Fringer EF - Z adapter with full AF and everything!)
 
By that logic they work on Sony too with an adapter.
And in fact you can adapt EF, F and a-mount AF lenses on to e-mount. So you still have a larger set of lenses to choose from.

Adapters are fiddly at best unless your plan is to buy one adapter per lens or stick an adapter permanently on to your new mirrorless camera. As soon as you add a couple native lenses it'll become annoying and fiddly.
Not to mention adapters tip the centre of gravity towards the front and add unnecessary bulk. They aren't ergonomic to use.
Been there done that, and it sucks.

OP is wanting to use UWA lenses and these lenses benefit massively from the shorter flange distance of mirrorless camera. It really makes sense to buy native lenses in this case. The mirrorless UWA lenses are generally smaller and sharper than their DSLR equivalents.

There is no getting away that Sony is the most mature mirrorless system adapter or no adapter. For a simple reason that it's been around a fair bit longer.
 
Last edited:
Both are great systems and whichever you choose you'll be happy for sure. However, here's my thoughts.

If starting from scratch as a hobbyist I would personally choose Sony, and whilst I am a Sony user myself this is not through bias as I have no allegiance to any system and choose what I perceive the best for my needs and budget.

The reason that I would choose Sony is mainly down to the vast array of native lens choices, a number of which are significantly cheaper and lighter than Canon's. As pointed out you can buy an adapter for the Canon to use the old EF lenses which allows you to have pretty much any lens you could ever wish for, however as nandbytes says you can also get adapters that allow you to use Canon EF lenses on Sony so Sony still has more options. If buying from scratch I personally would never buy a system that I'd have to use an adapter for most of my lenses.

Yes it's great if you've already got the lenses, but why would you choose to use adapted lenses if don't need to? As nandbytes also points out it can be more of a faff, and it does shift the weight forward meaning that lenses don't balance as well. Also as things develop and advance lenses get better and better and lenses that were once considered sharp are now mediocre by modern standards. Of course sharpness isn't everything, and isn't just determined by the lens, but why invest into something where you're going to have to adapt older lenses?

One other thing, and I never thought I'd say this, is that on the whole I actually prefer Sony colours these days, especially using color fidelity profiles. YMMV

You've mentioned a few wide angle lenses but unless you need the f2.8 have you considered the new(ish) 16-35mm f4 PZ, optical quality is stellar and it's really compact and light?
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
This^
It’s utter nonsense that Sony gives more choice of lenses. There are literally thousands of EF lenses out there that’ll work perfectly on the R6.
Click to expand...

If you are going to buy an EF16-35mm f/2.8 plus an adapter to use it on an R6 you might as well just buy the Tamron 17-28 for Sony E based on size, weight, cost, similar focal length and the less aggro of using adapted as mentioned by @nandbytes directly above ^

A7iii, Tamron 17-28 and 28-200 is a nice simple kit.
 
Thanks for the variety of opinions everyone!
pooley said:
I've had an R5 in the past and a Sony A1 so thats where me experience is regarding the AF. Both systems are superb, and the Sony A1 is the best focussing wildlife camera around. But its a very close run thing including knowledge in setting the camera up, personal technique, ability and a few other bits.

For animals on Safari, I'd actually go with the R6 out of that pair. The edge in low light ability, AF is plenty good enough for the big cats, and is no slouch with birds either. I always loved my Canon 100-400 ii, have had 2 copies and they were both top drawer. I'd take that over the RF 100-500 personally.

Like I say, I have an A1 and its simply an awesome camera. However, after years of Canon and a short dalliance with Nikon, it still doesn't feel right in my hands - I think I was too ingrained in Canon, so if I don't use it for a while, which is normal for me, I do end up missing shots fiddling around with what should be easy alterations. That said, once the camera is set up for safari I don't think either camera would require too much fiddling with until you returned home.

What I can say with absolute certainty is either model will blow away the AF of your 600D. Night and day.

Mike
Click to expand...
Thanks for your insight @pooley. I've read everywhere that Sony A1 is a beast so I'm glad you've had a great experience with it as well, despite some of the ergonomics quirks. The RF 100-500 and the EF 100-400 ii look great but as an occasional wildlife photographer, I think I'd opt for the cheaper and lighter/more portable (and not as good) native RF 100-400 lens if I were to choose Canon.
In terms of low light ability, it looks like the Sony A7 IV actually has a slight edge when it comes the dynamic range according to photonstophotos website (I don't know how this tranlates when it comes to real world use/editing though): link
snerkler said:
Both are great systems and whichever you choose you'll be happy for sure. However, here's my thoughts.

If starting from scratch as a hobbyist I would personally choose Sony, and whilst I am a Sony user myself this is not through bias as I have no allegiance to any system and choose what I perceive the best for my needs and budget.

The reason that I would choose Sony is mainly down to the vast array of native lens choices, a number of which are significantly cheaper and lighter than Canon's. As pointed out you can buy an adapter for the Canon to use the old EF lenses which allows you to have pretty much any lens you could ever wish for, however as nandbytes says you can also get adapters that allow you to use Canon EF lenses on Sony so Sony still has more options. If buying from scratch I personally would never buy a system that I'd have to use an adapter for most of my lenses.

Yes it's great if you've already got the lenses, but why would you choose to use adapted lenses if don't need to? As nandbytes also points out it can be more of a faff, and it does shift the weight forward meaning that lenses don't balance as well. Also as things develop and advance lenses get better and better and lenses that were once considered sharp are now mediocre by modern standards. Of course sharpness isn't everything, and isn't just determined by the lens, but why invest into something where you're going to have to adapt older lenses?

One other thing, and I never thought I'd say this, is that on the whole I actually prefer Sony colours these days, especially using color fidelity profiles. YMMV

You've mentioned a few wide angle lenses but unless you need the f2.8 have you considered the new(ish) 16-35mm f4 PZ, optical quality is stellar and it's really compact and light?
Click to expand...
I'm leaning more towards the Sony A7 IV (I could also consider the older and cheaper A7 III if I find a really good deal as suggested by @LeeRatters) for all of your reasons listed above @snerkler. I understand that I can use an adapter to have access to Canon's EF lenses as well as their 3rd party lenses. However, as @nandbytes pointed out, I'd rather invest in native mirrorless lenses (as long as the prices are not too crazy high) because of their compactness and practicality.

I am considering the new(ish) 16-35mm f4 PZ too, mainly because of its light weight, but can't help thinking I could do with one extra step of light for low light conditions and the
occasional astro or portrait photo if I want some okay-ish bokeh. Of course, I could pair it with a fast prime with a bigger aperture, which would be much better for that kind of photography. I'll look into it down the line if I see a big need for it and once the wallet is replenished.

The 16-35mm f4 PZ is harder to find on the secondary market though because it's relatively new and is only ~£250-300 cheaper than the f/2.8 GM. I've also read rumours stating that the 16-35 f/2.8 GM mark ii could be coming out in the next couple of months which could have a further knock-on effect on the second-hand mark i price? How much did the 24-70mm f/2.8 GM decrease in price when the mark ii came out last year?
 
lekhangaroo said:
Thanks for the variety of opinions everyone!

Thanks for your insight @pooley. I've read everywhere that Sony A1 is a beast so I'm glad you've had a great experience with it as well, despite some of the ergonomics quirks. The RF 100-500 and the EF 100-400 ii look great but as an occasional wildlife photographer, I think I'd opt for the cheaper and lighter/more portable (and not as good) native RF 100-400 lens if I were to choose Canon.
In terms of low light ability, it looks like the Sony A7 IV actually has a slight edge when it comes the dynamic range according to photonstophotos website (I don't know how this tranlates when it comes to real world use/editing though): link

I'm leaning more towards the Sony A7 IV (I could also consider the older and cheaper A7 III if I find a really good deal as suggested by @LeeRatters) for all of your reasons listed above @snerkler. I understand that I can use an adapter to have access to Canon's EF lenses as well as their 3rd party lenses. However, as @nandbytes pointed out, I'd rather invest in native mirrorless lenses (as long as the prices are not too crazy high) because of their compactness and practicality.

I am considering the new(ish) 16-35mm f4 PZ too, mainly because of its light weight, but can't help thinking I could do with one extra step of light for low light conditions and the
occasional astro or portrait photo if I want some okay-ish bokeh. Of course, I could pair it with a fast prime with a bigger aperture, which would be much better for that kind of photography. I'll look into it down the line if I see a big need for it and once the wallet is replenished.

The 16-35mm f4 PZ is harder to find on the secondary market though because it's relatively new and is only ~£250-300 cheaper than the f/2.8 GM. I've also read rumours stating that the 16-35 f/2.8 GM mark ii could be coming out in the next couple of months which could have a further knock-on effect on the second-hand mark i price? How much did the 24-70mm f/2.8 GM decrease in price when the mark ii came out last year?
Click to expand...
For astro you're obviously better off with a faster lens, I never do any so my 16-35mm is normally set to f8-11 so no need for the f2.8. The 16-35mm f2.8 GM II is rumoured to be announced within the next month, how much it will effect the price of the original GM I don't know. You can get the PZ cheaper grey than used UK if you're happy buying grey.

For astro Samyang do the compact lightweight 18mm f2.8 and 24mm f2.8, if you get a copy without decentering they're nice lenses.
 
lekhangaroo said:
I'm leaning more towards the Sony A7 IV (I could also consider the older and cheaper A7 III if I find a really good deal as suggested by @LeeRatters) for all of your reasons listed above @snerkler. I understand that I can use an adapter to have access to Canon's EF lenses as well as their 3rd party lenses. However, as @nandbytes pointed out, I'd rather invest in native mirrorless lenses (as long as the prices are not too crazy high) because of their compactness and practicality.

I am considering the new(ish) 16-35mm f4 PZ too, mainly because of its light weight, but can't help thinking I could do with one extra step of light for low light conditions and the
occasional astro or portrait photo if I want some okay-ish bokeh. Of course, I could pair it with a fast prime with a bigger aperture, which would be much better for that kind of photography. I'll look into it down the line if I see a big need for it and once the wallet is replenished.

The 16-35mm f4 PZ is harder to find on the secondary market though because it's relatively new and is only ~£250-300 cheaper than the f/2.8 GM. I've also read rumours stating that the 16-35 f/2.8 GM mark ii could be coming out in the next couple of months which could have a further knock-on effect on the second-hand mark i price? How much did the 24-70mm f/2.8 GM decrease in price when the mark ii came out last year?
Click to expand...

Personally for astro work I have decided to use prime lenses. I have 14GM, 24GM and 35GM. All of the lenses are small, light and best in thier class.
I have a sigma 85mm f1.4 DN for portraits and people.

I'm thinking of adding two zoom lenses, the new Sony 20-70 f4 and a 70-300mm (mostly likely the tamron).
I also have 200-600mm for wildlife life and longer reach but it stays at home when I travel.

In past I had the 16-35GM + tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 combination which was really interesting.

There are various options you can choose from, there is no right or wrong.
On a budget for astro samyang 24mm f1.8 is fantastic. It gives GM glass a run for it's money.
 
nandbytes said:
By that logic they work on Sony too with an adapter.
And in fact you can adapt EF, F and a-mount AF lenses on to e-mount. So you still have a larger set of lenses to choose from.

Adapters are fiddly at best unless your plan is to buy one adapter per lens or stick an adapter permanently on to your new mirrorless camera. As soon as you add a couple native lenses it'll become annoying and fiddly.
Not to mention adapters tip the centre of gravity towards the front and add unnecessary bulk. They aren't ergonomic to use.
Been there done that, and it sucks.

OP is wanting to use UWA lenses and these lenses benefit massively from the shorter flange distance of mirrorless camera. It really makes sense to buy native lenses in this case. The mirrorless UWA lenses are generally smaller and sharper than their DSLR equivalents.

There is no getting away that Sony is the most mature mirrorless system adapter or no adapter. For a simple reason that it's been around a fair bit longer.
Click to expand...
Not quite - they work perfectly on canon. There’s some lag if used on Sony, and more problems with other makes.
For instance my 70-200 2.8L is a better lens on my R6 than it was on my 6D.
And I’d hazard a guess it wouldn’t be on either a Nikon or a Sony.
 
LeeRatters said:
If you are going to buy an EF16-35mm f/2.8 plus an adapter to use it on an R6 you might as well just buy the Tamron 17-28 for Sony E based on size, weight, cost, similar focal length and the less aggro of using adapted as mentioned by @nandbytes directly above ^

A7iii, Tamron 17-28 and 28-200 is a nice simple kit.
Click to expand...
You’re right if that’s ‘all’ you’re planning to do. But the argument doesn’t hold if you want to use a whole variety of lenses.
 
Phil V said:
Not quite - they work perfectly on canon. There’s some lag if used on Sony, and more problems with other makes.
For instance my 70-200 2.8L is a better lens on my R6 than it was on my 6D.
And I’d hazard a guess it wouldn’t be on either a Nikon or a Sony.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen a large number of Canon lenses work pretty much flawlessly on the newer Sonys, including using things like Eye-AF. However, I'd still not choose to buy into a system to use adapters when you have the choice to use a system with native lenses that is as good as any other system out there. Obviously it's different if you're already invested in lenses, but if not it makes no sense to me. YMMV
 
Phil V said:
You’re right if that’s ‘all’ you’re planning to do. But the argument doesn’t hold if you want to use a whole variety of lenses.
Click to expand...
Well e-mount does also have a whole variety of lenses (y)

It's great that we have all the choices as not everyone wants the same thing. I was tempted by Canon, but for my most used lenses the Sony ones were and still are better. Obviously that may change in the future, but I can't buy into a system on what may or may not happen.

I'd suggest the OP considers what lenses they want and are likely to want in the future and see which system offers the best options for them (y)
 
At the end of the day, both systems will serve most hobbyists (and some professionals) needs as you've all rightly pointed out. It's been interesting reading different points of views on lenses though.
Sony's native lenses (including 3rd parties ones) are more attractive to me because of their more compact format (except for the lightweight Canon RF 100-400mm for which Sony E mount doesn't an equivalent lens) and lower weight. I enjoy long hikes so I need to optimise for weight efficiency in my bag. If I could save a few hundreds grams here and there, I won't say no to that! Having said that, I'll try the Sony A7 IV sometime next month and if I hate it, I'll go for the Canon R6 and stomach the slightly bulkier and heavier lenses :D
nandbytes said:
Personally for astro work I have decided to use prime lenses. I have 14GM, 24GM and 35GM. All of the lenses are small, light and best in thier class.
I have a sigma 85mm f1.4 DN for portraits and people.

I'm thinking of adding two zoom lenses, the new Sony 20-70 f4 and a 70-300mm (mostly likely the tamron).
I also have 200-600mm for wildlife life and longer reach but it stays at home when I travel.

In past I had the 16-35GM + tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 combination which was really interesting.

There are various options you can choose from, there is no right or wrong.
On a budget for astro samyang 24mm f1.8 is fantastic. It gives GM glass a run for it's money.
Click to expand...
snerkler said:
For astro you're obviously better off with a faster lens, I never do any so my 16-35mm is normally set to f8-11 so no need for the f2.8. The 16-35mm f2.8 GM II is rumoured to be announced within the next month, how much it will effect the price of the original GM I don't know. You can get the PZ cheaper grey than used UK if you're happy buying grey.

For astro Samyang do the compact lightweight 18mm f2.8 and 24mm f2.8, if you get a copy without decentering they're nice lenses.
Click to expand...
I don't mind buying grey as long as it works fine I guess. If I can find a cheap deal, 16-35 f/4 PZ combined with a fast prime lens might be the way to go.

I've got a few weeks/months to decide before the summer and my next holiday.
 
snerkler said:
Well e-mount does also have a whole variety of lenses (y)

It's great that we have all the choices as not everyone wants the same thing. I was tempted by Canon, but for my most used lenses the Sony ones were and still are better. Obviously that may change in the future, but I can't buy into a system on what may or may not happen.

I'd suggest the OP considers what lenses they want and are likely to want in the future and see which system offers the best options for them (y)
Click to expand...
It’s difficult to find a ‘bad’ camera, and every system is right for some people.

I’m not here to promote any Particular brand, just to refute some points others made that were erroneous or untrue.
 
Update #2: I managed to grab a used 16-35mm f2.8 GM at a good price. I played with it for a month and thought it was very sharp, especially at the wide end. I mainly took some city/nature photography with it stopped down. I did take a few occasional portrait photos at f2.8 and thought the result was satisfying for my need.

However, carrying the camera around my neck with the original strap for a whole day was not very comfortable so I decided to go with @snerkler's suggestion in the end and to trade it in for the f4 PZ version, which is so much lighter and is providing comparable results stopped down. I got the 24mm f1.4 GM to complement this new lens and I am very happy with it as well.

I'm now on the lookout for a new camera bag (or a better everyday care backpack with a small camera insert unit), and a tripod.
 
lekhangaroo said:
Update #2: I managed to grab a used 16-35mm f2.8 GM at a good price. I played with it for a month and thought it was very sharp, especially at the wide end. I mainly took some city/nature photography with it stopped down. I did take a few occasional portrait photos at f2.8 and thought the result was satisfying for my need.

However, carrying the camera around my neck with the original strap for a whole day was not very comfortable so I decided to go with @snerkler's suggestion in the end and to trade it in for the f4 PZ version, which is so much lighter and is providing comparable results stopped down. I got the 24mm f1.4 GM to complement this new lens and I am very happy with it as well.

I'm now on the lookout for a new camera bag (or a better everyday care backpack with a small camera insert unit), and a tripod.
Click to expand...
Sling straps such as the peak design slide distribute the weight much better, I personally wouldn't want the weight of the camera body around my neck let alone camera and lens. YMMV.

I'm hoping the get the PZ one day, how do you find the power zoom?
 
andrewc said:
I'd just have bought a better strap - Optech, Black Rapid, Peak Design...
Click to expand...
Ah yes, I should still look to invest in a better strap. I was rarely finding myself using the GM high aperture and still thought I could cut down on weight and cost with the PZ version (also with the rumours of a 16-35mm f2.8 GM mark II dangling around).

snerkler said:
Sling straps such as the peak design slide distribute the weight much better, I personally wouldn't want the weight of the camera body around my neck let alone camera and lens. YMMV.

I'm hoping the get the PZ one day, how do you find the power zoom?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice. I find the power zoom okay compared to some of the reviews I've seen online. It definitely has a different feel to it: it's not as reactive as a mechanical zoom and it has some latency (less than a second, but still just about perceptible) between the moment you turn the zoom ring (or play with the side toggle zoom button) and the lens actually zooming in or out to the desired focal length. I can see how the smooth zooming effect and "controlled" speed can be appealing to videographers though. For my usage with that zoom (mainly landscape), I don't mind it being slightly slower than a mechanical zoom and it will still be reactive enough for the big majority of use cases in my opinion.

Design wise, it is slightly more compact and smaller than the 16-35mm GM, and quite comparable to my 24mm GM in terms of size actually. It is considerably lighter than the 16-35mm GM though (~350g only!) which is a factor I like when packing light for traveling/hiking.
 
lekhangaroo said:
Ah yes, I should still look to invest in a better strap. I was rarely finding myself using the GM high aperture and still thought I could cut down on weight and cost with the PZ version (also with the rumours of a 16-35mm f2.8 GM mark II dangling around).


Thanks for the advice. I find the power zoom okay compared to some of the reviews I've seen online. It definitely has a different feel to it: it's not as reactive as a mechanical zoom and it has some latency (less than a second, but still just about perceptible) between the moment you turn the zoom ring (or play with the side toggle zoom button) and the lens actually zooming in or out to the desired focal length. I can see how the smooth zooming effect and "controlled" speed can be appealing to videographers though. For my usage with that zoom (mainly landscape), I don't mind it being slightly slower than a mechanical zoom and it will still be reactive enough for the big majority of use cases in my opinion.

Design wise, it is slightly more compact and smaller than the 16-35mm GM, and quite comparable to my 24mm GM in terms of size actually. It is considerably lighter than the 16-35mm GM though (~350g only!) which is a factor I like when packing light for traveling/hiking.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'd not require a fast zoom action, but I'd like it to respond. What I mean by this is that when I've used powered zooms in the past sometimes there'd be a delay when you release it meaning that you'd overshoot where you were wanting to zoom in/out to. Do you find this with the PZ or is it accurate to input (once it's started)?
 
snerkler said:
Thanks. I'd not require a fast zoom action, but I'd like it to respond. What I mean by this is that when I've used powered zooms in the past sometimes there'd be a delay when you release it meaning that you'd overshoot where you were wanting to zoom in/out to. Do you find this with the PZ or is it accurate to input (once it's started)?
Click to expand...
Hmmm yes depending on how slowly/quickly you action and release the zoom ring, there could sometimes be a delay and you could slightly overshoot it. I’d say it is more likely to happen when you want to zoom in or out very quickly, otherwise, you tend to feel less (or barely at all) that delay. I guess it’s just something to be aware of and to get used to in the end. Obviously, I’d recommend you to try it out before purchasing it but I don’t think I’ll be missing the current 16-35mm GM version personally
 
lekhangaroo said:
Hmmm yes depending on how slowly/quickly you action and release the zoom ring, there could sometimes be a delay and you could slightly overshoot it. I’d say it is more likely to happen when you want to zoom in or out very quickly, otherwise, you tend to feel less (or barely at all) that delay. I guess it’s just something to be aware of and to get used to in the end. Obviously, I’d recommend you to try it out before purchasing it but I don’t think I’ll be missing the current 16-35mm GM version personally
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info (y)
 
Again. No axe to grind; but I can think of nothing more pointless and frustrating than a power zoom.
 
Phil V said:
Again. No axe to grind; but I can think of nothing more pointless and frustrating than a power zoom.
Click to expand...
It's been done for the videographers, however I do wish they'd do a none power zoom version of the same lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top