Canon EOS R6 Mark III and Sony a7 V compared - Canon better specs but...

[Andrew Reid]

My thoughts on the blog.

https://www.eoshd.com/news/are-canon-back-on-top-in-specs-race-sony-a7-v-and-canon-eos-r6-mark-iii-comparison/

[ND64]

At the moment the best lens to body ratio in the market is like 1.7, and a lot of that is standing on the shoulder of kit lenses. Having third party option is good, but majority of people don't buy many lenses to begin with.

[Andrew Reid]

What does a lens to body ratio of 1.7 mean?

[EduPortas]

That each camera owner of a particular brand buys, in this case, 1.7 lenses for his camera.

From memory, almost all brands are below 2. So that means the aside from the kit lenses, buyers rarely ever consume another lens for the camera body.

[mtol]

I own one L-mount lens and two bodies, with about 40 adapted vintage lenses.

I could imagine kitting up if I was on Fuji X mount or Micro 43s, but I made a decision at some point to put everything into EF mount so that I could jump between camera systems when the time comes.

[ntblowz]

RF lens have price for both High/Mid/Low atm so I m actually fine with it (haven't got RF L lens, but no need to), I just got the RF 45mm 1.2 recently, no other 3rd party do F1.2 at such low price.

Beside you loss some function with 3rd party like slightly worser AF, no Dynamic Active IS and limiting FPS for high speed shooting on some brand, and incompatible issues with new body or new firmware.

When I was with Sony the only 3rd party lens I got is tamron 28-200mm cause sony 24-240mm sucks, the rest of my len is G/GM lens.  The old Zeiss 24-70mm F4 is really showing the age vs newer zoom lens except the 28-70mm 2.8 lol.  Currently I use some Sigma lens on my S1II and there is a difference on AF tracking/hunting vs Panasonic lens, but at least I dont get limited to 15FPS or no Active IS..