Has anyone switched from Canon to Sony DSLR

[dennis_mansour1]

<p>I am not sure if this is the correct area for this question. I am a Canon shooter mainly Weddings and portraits. I was wondering if the switch to Sony Pro DSLR from Canon Pro DSLR ( 5D MK2) was any better in Image quality. Thanks,</p>

[starvy]

<p>Hi Dennis,</p>

<p>If you are an existing full frame shooter possessing good Canon glass, it really does not make any sense to switch. Full frame Sony bodies really deliver to their full potential when combined with the best of Sony G or Zeiss lenses. So you will have to account for that sort of accessory to get the very best.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>I'd suggest dropping a line to Michael Reichmann, he shoots both systems and wrote up a <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml">fairly detailed comparison between the 5D Mk2 and the a900</a> two years go. The a900 has since had a firmware upgrade so your excuse for bugging him could be something along the lines of "have you had any further thoughts on the relative strengths and weaknesses of both cameras since the firmware change for the a900"?</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>I shoot both, Canon's images seem better overall with the balance of noise, details in the images but I'm shooting with my Sony more - I think the colours seem to be nicer to my eyes with Sony and plus Sony is cool with all the innovations happening. I have nicer glass for the Canon but I picked up a whole bunch of old used lenses that once I can nail the focus, the images look great too.</p>

[dennis_mansour1]

<p>Thank you for this review. I will wait to see what else Sony comes out with in 2011. I will want to get the CZ 24-70 2.8 or the 17-50 as rumored. Thank you</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I agree with Starvy. I am switching, because I like the auto-focus of the Sony SLT cameras and the fold-out screens, but I moved to Nikon first, because at the time Canon didn't offer anything to compete with the D5000. If you aren't switching for the better live-view functionality or the "Steady Shot" feature of the Sony cameras (that even works super wides and with fixed focal length f1.4 lenses), then I'd say don't switch.</p>

[sherijohnson]

<p>I shoot with both Sony & Canon, but mainly with Canon.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Wondering whether Sony would be better than Canon in image quality? That's a joke, right? The photographer is responsible for image quality in my book. I wouldn't waste time and expense even contemplating it.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Well maybe not so much a joke as question of priorities? In my recollection a lot of the "forum heat" generated after the release of the 5DMk2 and the a900 centered on personal preferences for lowest noise at highest ISOs (which tended to receive a lot more attention from Canon shooters) versus dynamic range and color accuracy at lowest ISOs (which tended to get more proclaimed importance from Sony/Minolta shooters).</p>

<p>In practice the half-empty glasses for some were probably half-full ones for others. Obviously the differences could have been more meaningful for frequent low-light and/or landscape shooters. At the same time those of us who are equipped with the fullest-featured hardware also often make use of the most versatile/sophisticated software, so any genuine "quality" differences should be as good as entirely fixable in post processing.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Richard, I can think of situations where the Sony WOULD DEFINITELY BE BETTER than Canon for image quality. Using a 50mm f1.4, a Sony shooter can shoot at slower shutter speeds, and therefore lower ISO than a Canon shooter can. Why? Because a Sony shooter has the ability to turn on the in-camera image stabilization, which works wonders, even with a 50mm f1.4 lens. Try that with a Canon, using 50mm f1.2 L or an 85mm f1.2 L. Of course, there would be a difference in the image quality of the 50mm f1.2 L, which might make up a little for the the degradation caused by noise reduction, because the shot has to be made at ISO800 instead of ISO200, to keep the shutter speed up to 1/8 or 1/15 second, so the shot is not blurred.<br>

-<br>

There are plenty of high-end shooters using the A900 Sony, partly because of the in-camera image stabilization. That is a very very important feature. When comparing lenses, a wedding shooter or a landscape shooter can easily use Sony and Zeiss lenses, which compete well against the Canon and Nikon lens systems. Don't forget that the Sony bodies have a whole slew of excellent quality Tamron and Sigma lenses available too. In my opinion, anyone who does not need PC (TS in Canon terms) lenses, like the Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E, should consider Sony as the future of photography. Canon has their big wins, such as the first full-frame cameras (by a major camera company - I guess Nikon was happy to let Kodak provide full-frame cameras for their lenses), the video capable 5 D Mk II, and now the amazing 7 D. Still, the 1 Ds Mk IV has been a long time coming! I'm not sure why, but Canon was last to the fold-out screen part in the SLR world. Canon seemed to dominate the fold-out screen range in the point-and-shoot world for a long time. Maybe the pro department at Canon felt some weird pride that they didn't have a "point-and-shoot feature" on their cameras. I switched to Nikon because of that. Now I'm switching to Sony because Nikon and Canon can't get their act together and provide a decent fold-out-screen DSLR that can compete against the fold-out-screen Sony cameras (and because Sony is offering cameras and lenses for better value than Canon and Nikon - faster, cheaper, etc.).<br>

-<br>

Would I sell thousands of dollars worth of Canon equipment right now, just to get a little feature? I don't think so, but if I was getting shaky (in my old age), and I loved using prime lenses, I might consider Sony just because they have in-camera image stabilization. I don't love using prime lenses. I believe in using them where they are needed though. I also believe in using the best technology available to improve my photos (in camera and in the computer after capture).<br>

-<br>

Yes, the photographer's technique is always the most important component. No, not every photographer uses brand new, high-tech equipment. Yes, some features of new cameras can make a big difference. No, you don't need high-tech to get amazing photos. Yes, to get the best equipment for your needs, you need experience and knowledge, and you should probably get new gear every once in a while. Otherwise just go to Craigslist, eBay, or KEH.com and get an old Nikon F3 with a manual focus 50mm f1.8 AIS lens, and shoot away . . . with film . . . and good luck.<br>

-<br>

There are master photographers out there shooting with even more archaic cameras - rangefinders. They produce some of the greatest work. They do not worry about digital. They either don't believe it is ready, or they love film, or whatever. I really like some of the cool, new, retro rangefinder cameras.<br>

-<br>

I think using a wide variety of equipment is a good idea. From point-and-shoots to large format view cameras, there is something to be learned from them all. Ever heard of the Scheimpflug principle Dennis? http://youtu.be/gR4m70xr9mE</p>