Switching from Sony to Canon?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

J

Jan267

New member
Member's gallery
Hello everyone,

This is my first post in this forum, and I urgently need your help regarding my decision-making process.

I’ve been considering switching systems from Sony to Canon for a while now.
I’m thinking about trading my Sony A1, including the battery grip, and my Sony 300mm f2.8 GM with 1.4 TC for the Canon R5 Mark II, the Canon RF 100-500mm, and the Canon RF 24-105mm f2.8.

How do you see the comparison between the Sony A1 and the Canon R5 Mark II? Which camera has the edge here?

Even though the Sony 300mm GM is not really comparable to the Canon RF 100-500mm, how do you perceive the differences in terms of image quality, sharpness, Apurtare, Bokeh, AF-Performance etc.?

Regarding the Canon 24-105mm f2.8, I have absolutely no doubts or concerns. That lens is amazing.


Some thoughts about switching to Canon are as follows:
  • My brother and my father both use Canon cameras, so there would be the possibility of swapping lenses among us.
  • In my opinion, the haptics of Canon cameras and lenses is better. Of course, this is subjective and can vary from person to person.
  • The versatility in terms of focal lengths is not provided by the Sony 300mm f2.8. Extensions are only possible with teleconverters to 420mm or 600mm.
  • The pre-capture feature, Eye-AF, AF-Performance, the higher resolution display etc., including the high megapixel count of the Canon R5 Mark II, are very appealing to me. With only 5 megapixels less compared to the Sony A1, the reduction in megapixels is minimal.
  • Furthermore, I’m still disappointed with Sony’s firmware updates; their competitors are delivering more in that regard
These are just a few thoughts about the system switch.


I love the 300mm f2.8 GM, and I haven’t had a lens in my hands that performs and delivers quality, sharpness, and bokeh like this one. Whether with or without teleconverters (1.4x / 2.0x). Therefore, the only point I'm unsure about is switching from this prime lens to the Canon RF 100-500mm.

Perhaps you could give me some insights, experiences, or tips. :)Thank you in advance!
 
Consider rolling shutter effect. Also consider the age of the a1 and the likelihood of an updated a1 on the near horizon.

I'd hate the idea of letting go of the 300mm GM.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I'm an A1 shooter since its release. I owned the R5 for 6 months at its release leading up to the A1 release. I have borrowed my friend's R5II with the 100-500 for two days so my experience with R5II is limited. My main photography is trying for BIF and shooting non-BIF when there are no birds flying. My opinions are always biased towards BIF.

The very quick summary before I give some more detailed thoughts.... BIF A1>R5II....non-BIF R5II>A1.

Where does the R5II excel:
1) Price point...there is no doubt it is way better value...but you already have A1 so that doesn't really matter

2) non-BIF Bird Eye AF (BEAF)...the R5II is the best out there that I've tried, even the original R5 I thought was better than A1 and Z8/Z9. It is just so good at finding birds when they aren't presenting themselves clearly to the camera in traditional field guide poses. Going into crop mode improves recognition when bird is further away but the R5II is now really good at small in the frame recognition (better than R5). That said, once the bird is in a pose you'd actually want to take the picture (like good head angle) the A1 is just as good as R5II. But finding stuff behind sticks or turned away, the R5II is much better than A1.

3) Pre-capture. I love adding pre-capture to my workflow. Probably the only reason I will buy an A1II is because it will have pre-capture. The R5II's implementation of precapture is restrictive but still gets it done. You can't customize it other than changing your FPS. It always takes 15 (or less if you don't half press long enough) shots no matter what FPS you choose. So at 30FPS you get 15 shots going back 0.5s. At 20FPS you get 15 shots going back 0.75s, 10FPS you get 15 shots going back 1.5s....etc. You can't activate pre-capture via a back button (only shutter half-press) and you can't customize a button to toggle it on and off. The A9III (and assume A1II) has full control over pre-capture and better ways to customize it onto buttons including a toggle on/off and activation via back button AF. I found A9III best was 0.3s for what I wanted to do so on R5II I'd always leave it at 30FPS to only go 0.5s back....longer than that is just too many useless shots so going to 20FPS you get 0.75s of shots which is a lot of waste. On R5II if you are a BBAF shooter you can easily leave pre-capture on all the time, do your AF with back button and when you want pre-capture you also half-press shutter, if you don't want it you just full press shutter and it won't have buffered any shots yet. It is trickier to leave on all the time if you are shutter AF shooter.

4) BEAF in video. A1 doesn't have it and looks like we aren't getting it in FW.

5) IS/IBIS. R5II has better IS/IBIS, especially seen in handheld video shooting.

So why do I still prefer the A1:
1) Better button ergonomics and button customization. The Sonys still rule in this category. Setting the camera up to do exactly what you want to do is still much better on the A1. A1 has more customizable buttons, better positioning of those buttons, better sized buttons (this is improved even more on the A9III body and future A1II). Scroll wheels are in better positions on the A1 and you do have 4 wheels for ultimate choice no matter if you are full M or semi-auto mode.
Sony just gets it more than Canon and Nikon when it comes to developing and customizing features. One recent example....Nikon and Canon added the ability to set a focus recall distance which can be a big benefit for MILCs that struggle coming from far to very close focus. Sony has now added that to the A1. But Nikon and Canon make you program a button to set and another button to recall. Wasting two custom buttons just to use this feature. What does Sony do? They make it a single button, long press to set, tap to recall. Genius. Only waste one button for this good feature (I have it on my lens button).

2) Better AF for quick and distant acquisition of BIF with better holding of focus as the bird approaches and better hold against messy backgrounds and better initial acquisition against messy backgrounds. That said, the R5II has greatly improved in this over the R5. It is pretty close to the A1 now so it isn't as big of a reason for me anymore to go A1 over R5II. I still trust the A1 more so than the R5II to get me the BIF shot when it happens unexpectedly.

3) 300GM and the overall lens options. The 300GM has quickly become my favourite lens of all time. Dethroning my 400DOII. My other favs are 500PF and my 600GM. That lens has eliminated any lust I had for the Nikon 600PF. There are no lenses from Canon that really interest me. The only one I would be curious about is the RF 100-300/2.8. But I don't really have a lot of use cases for the 100-299 option so it would just be a larger and heavier lens than the 300GM.

4) Zebras in stills. Love this.

I think some of that has addressed your points. My biggest concern with your plan, more so than the camera choice, is the lens choice. I struggled a lot going back to the f/7.1 of the 100-500 when I was shooting the R5II. I couldn't do that. I'd need to purchase the RF400 or RF600 or that RF100-300. The 100-500 was my lens on the R5 when I owned it for those 6 months and I coped but for what I do, I need SS and I'm just very used to shooting f/2.8 and f/4 (with some f/5.6)...7.1 just takes it a bit to slow for my liking.

A couple more comments to directly address your list:
* Sharing lenses could be a big draw if it is really a feasible thing to do
* As I mentioned above I find Sony haptics much better
* 300GM versatility...sure you have to swap TCs, but it is super versatile with those TCs and I've been using the heck out of all three focal lengths so far. 100-500 is zoom convenience but slow apertures and the zoom stiffness and amount of rotation is unusable for zooming during BIF acquisition (unlike something like the 200-600 which is short throw and smooth).
* pre-capture...check, Eye-AF (for non-BIF)...check, AF-performance...not really, higher resolution...LCD...check (I don't find in the field it is a big difference)....EVF...a wash (Sony more resolution some of the time, Canon a bit better color/contrast)...mostly a wash.
* Agree that 45 vs 50MP doesn't matter but the faster scan speed on A1 is better...R5II will show leaning background lines when panning fast enough...A1 rarely....but R5II is fast enough for not distorting wings.

I really like the R5II. But without any lenses I want and with what I can predict the A1II will bring to the table, I'm firmly staying in the Sony camp unless something changes (like Canon brings out a 400/2.8DO or 600/4DO with built in TC or Nikon makes a better camera in the Z9II which I can use the 400TC and 600PF on).
Your situation may be very different, the R5II may make you happier....just don't expect it to be way better than the 3.5year old A1...it isn't.
 
Last edited:
You are comparing the newly minted R5ii to an aging A1. Not fair because the next a1 will likely knock our socks off. I'm a Canon shooter and likely always will be, and very happy with the R5 and the 100-500. The R5ii will certainly meet your needs, but what Sony will deliver could be phenomenal.

I wouldn't worry over rolling shutter. Yes the readout is slower than the z9/z8 but it is still plenty fast. Plus if you were worried there is a mechanical and also a first-curtain shutter.

The dynamic range is pretty identical between the two cameras.

I believe your a1 has blinkies in the viewfinder, which I wish canon had. Also do you have fulltime dof preview? With Canon you have to hold a button to see the dof in the viewfinder. Not a big deal.

So I guess I'd see what the next a1 gives you before deciding. The A1 or the R5 is not what is holding us back from winning the Pulitzer prize.
 
Member's gallery
I’ve switched from Canon to Nikon more than a few times over the past 20 years. It's fun to switch, there is a honeymoon phase but quite often after some time has passed you realize the grass isn’t always greener. Currently a Sony shooter, two A7R5’s and a FX3. The A7R5 isn’t fast by today's standards but I can honestly say it's the best camera I’ve ever owned. Love the autofocus for wildlife and everything else and REALLY love how much I can crop and plenty fast for my needs but take that with a grain of salt as I remember back in the day how blown away I was with the speed of cameras like the Canon 1DMKII so I can easily live with the A7R5’s speed limitations. Not much of a limitation really if you have a good set of skills. I’ve always been a huge Canon fan, still am but would put them at the bottom of the list UNLESS you have VERY deep pockets due to lack of glass particularly for wildlife UNLESS that is you have very deep pockets and can swing 400mm 2.8 or 600mm f4. The 100-500 is a fine lens I’m sure but to pay nearly $3k for F7 at 500mm RELATIVE to what you can get from Nikon or Sony or the GREAT third party wildlife glass from Sigma that sings on a Sony body, no thanks. Even if I could justify 600mm f4, it would not be enough to sway me to switch from Sony. When I head out in the woods I put a 1.4tc on a Sony 70-200mm 2.8 for handheld and a 200-600mm on a tripod. Get some great low light wildlife images too from the 135mm prime on the A7R5. You’d be surprised what f1.8 and being able to crop a lot can produce in the woods when it's getting dark. I don’t love the 200-600 but goodness gracious it's an INCREDIBLE VALUE considering that you can pick up used version on FM for under $1500. The 300mm 2.8 will be my next acquisition to tandem with the 1.4 tc. Glass IMO is always more important than bodies. I used to be a lens snob and didn’t touch third party glass but now I am a huge fan of the Sigma Art lenses, phenomenal fast glass at great prices particularly if bought used and it all works on Sony.

Lotta value in a Sony system but I just don’t see a lot of value unless things change with Canon and I say this having spent probably 75% of the last 20 years shooting Canon. Nikon is appealing but I think Sony has the lead not only in terms of the resources they have as a company to stay on the cutting edge but what is on the horizon. I’m perfectly happy with my A7R5’s and FX3 but I imagine the next version of the A1 next year will really raise the bar and I’ll be selling one of my A7R5’s and probably the FX3 to fund as soon as it's available. The new R5II tweaked my interest, but only briefly after thinking real hard about all I’ve learned over the past 20 years.
 
Member's gallery
Hey, thank you all so much for your detailed experiences and Advices.

For me I think the most thing im struggling with is the Trade between the Prime Sony 300 GM and the RF 100-500 and Not about the Trade of the cameras.

And yes i agree with the Point of waiting for the A1 II, but Nobody know how Long we all have to wait for the Release 😅

I used the 100-500 and also Seen many pictures from my Brother who is using the R3 with the 100-500mm.. and for me the Quality is absolutly insane! For Low Light Conditions of course Not that good..

Its a Hard Choice.. and yes Lens Over Body, Thats true, but the 24-105mm 2.8 from Canon is also an excellence Lens…
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
I'm an A1 shooter since its release. I owned the R5 for 6 months at its release leading up to the A1 release. I have borrowed my friend's R5II with the 100-500 for two days so my experience with R5II is limited. My main photography is trying for BIF and shooting non-BIF when there are no birds flying. My opinions are always biased towards BIF.

The very quick summary before I give some more detailed thoughts.... BIF A1>R5II....non-BIF R5II>A1.

Where does the R5II excel:
1) Price point...there is no doubt it is way better value...but you already have A1 so that doesn't really matter

2) non-BIF Bird Eye AF (BEAF)...the R5II is the best out there that I've tried, even the original R5 I thought was better than A1 and Z8/Z9. It is just so good at finding birds when they aren't presenting themselves clearly to the camera in traditional field guide poses. Going into crop mode improves recognition when bird is further away but the R5II is now really good at small in the frame recognition (better than R5). That said, once the bird is in a pose you'd actually want to take the picture (like good head angle) the A1 is just as good as R5II. But finding stuff behind sticks or turned away, the R5II is much better than A1.

3) Pre-capture. I love adding pre-capture to my workflow. Probably the only reason I will buy an A1II is because it will have pre-capture. The R5II's implementation of precapture is restrictive but still gets it done. You can't customize it other than changing your FPS. It always takes 15 (or less if you don't half press long enough) shots no matter what FPS you choose. So at 30FPS you get 15 shots going back 0.5s. At 20FPS you get 15 shots going back 0.75s, 10FPS you get 15 shots going back 1.5s....etc. You can't activate pre-capture via a back button (only shutter half-press) and you can't customize a button to toggle it on and off. The A9III (and assume A1II) has full control over pre-capture and better ways to customize it onto buttons including a toggle on/off and activation via back button AF. I found A9III best was 0.3s for what I wanted to do so on R5II I'd always leave it at 30FPS to only go 0.5s back....longer than that is just too many useless shots so going to 20FPS you get 0.75s of shots which is a lot of waste. On R5II if you are a BBAF shooter you can easily leave pre-capture on all the time, do your AF with back button and when you want pre-capture you also half-press shutter, if you don't want it you just full press shutter and it won't have buffered any shots yet. It is trickier to leave on all the time if you are shutter AF shooter.

4) BEAF in video. A1 doesn't have it and looks like we aren't getting it in FW.

5) IS/IBIS. R5II has better IS/IBIS, especially seen in handheld video shooting.

So why do I still prefer the A1:
1) Better button ergonomics and button customization. The Sonys still rule in this category. Setting the camera up to do exactly what you want to do is still much better on the A1. A1 has more customizable buttons, better positioning of those buttons, better sized buttons (this is improved even more on the A9III body and future A1II). Scroll wheels are in better positions on the A1 and you do have 4 wheels for ultimate choice no matter if you are full M or semi-auto mode.
Sony just gets it more than Canon and Nikon when it comes to developing and customizing features. One recent example....Nikon and Canon added the ability to set a focus recall distance which can be a big benefit for MILCs that struggle coming from far to very close focus. Sony has now added that to the A1. But Nikon and Canon make you program a button to set and another button to recall. Wasting two custom buttons just to use this feature. What does Sony do? They make it a single button, long press to set, tap to recall. Genius. Only waste one button for this good feature (I have it on my lens button).

2) Better AF for quick and distant acquisition of BIF with better holding of focus as the bird approaches and better hold against messy backgrounds and better initial acquisition against messy backgrounds. That said, the R5II has greatly improved in this over the R5. It is pretty close to the A1 now so it isn't as big of a reason for me anymore to go A1 over R5II. I still trust the A1 more so than the R5II to get me the BIF shot when it happens unexpectedly.

3) 300GM and the overall lens options. The 300GM has quickly become my favourite lens of all time. Dethroning my 400DOII. My other favs are 500PF and my 600GM. That lens has eliminated any lust I had for the Nikon 600PF. There are no lenses from Canon that really interest me. The only one I would be curious about is the RF 100-300/2.8. But I don't really have a lot of use cases for the 100-299 option so it would just be a larger and heavier lens than the 300GM.

4) Zebras in stills. Love this.

I think some of that has addressed your points. My biggest concern with your plan, more so than the camera choice, is the lens choice. I struggled a lot going back to the f/7.1 of the 100-500 when I was shooting the R5II. I couldn't do that. I'd need to purchase the RF400 or RF600 or that RF100-300. The 100-500 was my lens on the R5 when I owned it for those 6 months and I coped but for what I do, I need SS and I'm just very used to shooting f/2.8 and f/4 (with some f/5.6)...7.1 just takes it a bit to slow for my liking.

A couple more comments to directly address your list:
* Sharing lenses could be a big draw if it is really a feasible thing to do
* As I mentioned above I find Sony haptics much better
* 300GM versatility...sure you have to swap TCs, but it is super versatile with those TCs and I've been using the heck out of all three focal lengths so far. 100-500 is zoom convenience but slow apertures and the zoom stiffness and amount of rotation is unusable for zooming during BIF acquisition (unlike something like the 200-600 which is short throw and smooth).
* pre-capture...check, Eye-AF (for non-BIF)...check, AF-performance...not really, higher resolution...LCD...check (I don't find in the field it is a big difference)....EVF...a wash (Sony more resolution some of the time, Canon a bit better color/contrast)...mostly a wash.
* Agree that 45 vs 50MP doesn't matter but the faster scan speed on A1 is better...R5II will show leaning background lines when panning fast enough...A1 rarely....but R5II is fast enough for not distorting wings.

I really like the R5II. But without any lenses I want and with what I can predict the A1II will bring to the table, I'm firmly staying in the Sony camp unless something changes (like Canon brings out a 400/2.8DO or 600/4DO with built in TC or Nikon makes a better camera in the Z9II which I can use the 400TC and 600PF on).
Your situation may be very different, the R5II may make you happier....just don't expect it to be way better than the 3.5year old A1...it isn't.
Click to expand...

Exactly my sentiment. Current owner of the A1 + 200-600 and 100-400, saving up for 300GM. I also own OM-1mk2+300 F4, the combo that I quite like for the most part and it's very light too.

Canon, as you mention, does not have the middle-tier wildlife lenses, like Sony or Nikon do. The issue with Nikon's primes (400 4.5, 600 6.3, 800 6.3) is MFD. For my style of shooting, even 200-600's MFD of 2m is somewhat limiting. The OM combo is much better. I can't imagine what it would be like to have an MFD of 4m on 600 6.3.

I really hope Sony would come out with longer, medium F-stop lenses to complement 300GM. I prefer medium F-stops for lighter weight. Sigma 500 5.6 looks amazing on paper and every bit as good as 500PF optically, but the 15fps limitation on A1 and especially no TCs just plain sucks.
 
Member's gallery
Jan267 said:
Hello everyone,

This is my first post in this forum, and I urgently need your help regarding my decision-making process.

I’ve been considering switching systems from Sony to Canon for a while now.
I’m thinking about trading my Sony A1, including the battery grip, and my Sony 300mm f2.8 GM with 1.4 TC for the Canon R5 Mark II, the Canon RF 100-500mm, and the Canon RF 24-105mm f2.8.

How do you see the comparison between the Sony A1 and the Canon R5 Mark II? Which camera has the edge here?

Even though the Sony 300mm GM is not really comparable to the Canon RF 100-500mm, how do you perceive the differences in terms of image quality, sharpness, Apurtare, Bokeh, AF-Performance etc.?

Regarding the Canon 24-105mm f2.8, I have absolutely no doubts or concerns. That lens is amazing.


Some thoughts about switching to Canon are as follows:
  • My brother and my father both use Canon cameras, so there would be the possibility of swapping lenses among us.
  • In my opinion, the haptics of Canon cameras and lenses is better. Of course, this is subjective and can vary from person to person.
  • The versatility in terms of focal lengths is not provided by the Sony 300mm f2.8. Extensions are only possible with teleconverters to 420mm or 600mm.
  • The pre-capture feature, Eye-AF, AF-Performance, the higher resolution display etc., including the high megapixel count of the Canon R5 Mark II, are very appealing to me. With only 5 megapixels less compared to the Sony A1, the reduction in megapixels is minimal.
  • Furthermore, I’m still disappointed with Sony’s firmware updates; their competitors are delivering more in that regard
These are just a few thoughts about the system switch.


I love the 300mm f2.8 GM, and I haven’t had a lens in my hands that performs and delivers quality, sharpness, and bokeh like this one. Whether with or without teleconverters (1.4x / 2.0x). Therefore, the only point I'm unsure about is switching from this prime lens to the Canon RF 100-500mm.

Perhaps you could give me some insights, experiences, or tips. :)Thank you in advance!
Click to expand...
Is this an April fools in September? Not trying to be rude but I could never imagine going from an a1 to an R5 of any version. The zooms and depth of field and higher iso would be a total no go for me as well.
 
Member's gallery
MarkG said:
Exactly my sentiment. Current owner of the A1 + 200-600 and 100-400, saving up for 300GM. I also own OM-1mk2+300 F4, the combo that I quite like for the most part and it's very light too.

Canon, as you mention, does not have the middle-tier wildlife lenses, like Sony or Nikon do. The issue with Nikon's primes (400 4.5, 600 6.3, 800 6.3) is MFD. For my style of shooting, even 200-600's MFD of 2m is somewhat limiting. The OM combo is much better. I can't imagine what it would be like to have an MFD of 4m on 600 6.3.

I really hope Sony would come out with longer, medium F-stop lenses to complement 300GM. I prefer medium F-stops for lighter weight. Sigma 500 5.6 looks amazing on paper and every bit as good as 500PF optically, but the 15fps limitation on A1 and especially no TCs just plain sucks.
Click to expand...
Yes, Canon's big hole IMHO is the lack of high quality, lightweight, compact, mid-priced, glass. It's Sony's deficit as well and I'm not sure how you arrive at a different opinion? Yes, Sony has the tremendous 300 GM at $6k, the 400 GM at $12k, the 600 GM at $13k, and the venerable, low priced 200-600 at about $1.9k. The 300 GM is a fantastic lens and performs incredibly well with both the 1.4 and 2x TC's, though apart from the 200-600, it is really the only other "mid-priced" lens. Nikon has this niche market cornered (for now).
 
Member's gallery
I used Canon for 20 years before switching to Sony and I've toyed with the idea of switching to Nikon but honestly, I would never go back to Canon. The only thing about Nikon that tempts me is the built-in TCs in their superteles. Sony bodies are just more intuitive for me.
 
It's funny I'd have the opposite reaction, Canon ergonomics are just right for me, and I don't want to pay 5 or 6 thousand for a lens, and certainly not 10 to 15k for exotics. What they offer for $2,000 to $2700 meets my needs very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top