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..

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, EduPortas said:

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

Haha. I am not one of those then...

Lenses are more important than cameras, really.

It's true a lot of people are happy with one modern 24-70mm F2.8 for silly prices like $2k that can only be used on ONE camera and maybe a fast 50mm... F1.2? for another $2k (fuck me... no wonder they don't own many), maybe a longer lens - 70-200mm perhaps for 2 grand or whatever, that is 6 grand totally down the drain.

Just get a good 35mm prime and learn to use back-button AF.

I don't understand why they think the heavy zooms are such a great option.

The 24-70s are massive and don't have the character of a nice 35mm F1.4.

28mm or 35mm are a fantastic focal lengths... Not too wide for people shots, easy to crop to a 50mm FOV. The do-it-all lenses.

Give me a small 28mm F2 like the Leica Q over a DSLR 24-70 any day...

I have the images to prove it!

[Snowfun]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Lenses are more important than cameras, really

I suspect that for the majority of working professionals, convenience > image quality. Hence the use of zooms rather than primes. And, let’s be honest, the image quality of good zooms isn’t too shabby! 

Those of us with time on our hands - no commercial deadlines - playing with M mount lenses is great fun. I’m certainly enjoying my Voigtlander VM Apo 28,35,50 set.

[Andrew Reid]

50 minutes ago, Snowfun said:

working professionals

Ah yes, I've never liked them either 🙂

[Jahleh]

With Sony the only FW update you get is probably for your Playstation, but don’t worry, Sony will always release a cheaper model, which will have some of the features you miss.

Canon R5II and R6III sounded tempting, but after looking the 3D pop & toneh show from YT I am not sure Canon IQ is any better than Nikon. It depends on which kind of image you like more. 

So it leaves only Panasonic and Nikon on the table for me. With them you might get some HW and FW quirks at launch, but they also try to fix them and give new good  additional features along the years, not just in the form of new bodies like Sony.

I have a 35mm F1.4 too, but it is only for those cases I can’t use the 135mm F1.8.  My 50mm F1.2 captured only dust since I got the 135. Still not sure whether I should up or downgrade it and 35 F1.4 to 35 F1.2 or to boring, but easy to use 24-70 S II. Probably not. Thought also about swapping the Z6III and 400mm F4.5 to Z8, as with 2.3x crop 135mm would be 310mm F4.1 on Z8. Very likely not worth it either.

[Simon Young]

Another thing to compare is how the manufacturer handles the age old question of an OLPF. The R3, which share the sensor with the C80 and C400 has a pretty weak symmetrical OLPF, but it’s certainly good. The FX3 has no OLPF and is prone to moiré. So is the S1ii and the Z6iii and the Zr, which share the same sensor, and a very weak asymmetrical OLPF. 
 

The R5C, the R5ii and the R5 also has an asymmetrical OLPF but is less prone to moiré, maybe because of the 8k sensor.

 

What kind of OLPF Canon put in the C50 and the R6iii remains to be seen…

[kye]

23 hours ago, Snowfun said:

I suspect that for the majority of working professionals, convenience > image quality. Hence the use of zooms rather than primes. And, let’s be honest, the image quality of good zooms isn’t too shabby! 

Cheap zoom lenses (and especially kit-zooms) are often the BEST lenses.

I wrote a whole thread on it here including examples and comparisons, but the summary is:

• They're cheaper than almost any alternative
• They're flexible and very fast to use, because zooming is always faster than changing primes
• They improve your edits because you can get greater coverage and variety of shots in the same amount of time / setups
• They are in the "sweet spot" between being too sharp and looking clinical and being too vintage, but their aberrations are often actually very aligned with the qualities of vintage lenses people want, just dialled down to a modest amount
• They have smaller apertures so are easier to focus / less prone to focus errors and don't need as much ND in brighter situations
• They often have native AF and are kept updated with firmware updates
• They often have OIS
• Those with variable apertures are much closer to being constant DOF, where the more you zoom in the smaller the aperture gets, counteracting the effects of the longer focal-length, which makes your footage more consistent

They don't get a lot of love online, but that's because most of the discussion online is about the things that are THE MOST of something (the sharpest, the newest, the biggest, the most expensive, etc) and being cheap and good is only really attractive to people who actually shoot in the real world and where a happy middle ground is desirable.

My most used lens is a variable aperture zoom lens, despite me owning many much "better" lenses.