Can the 5d IV Still Compete in Pro DSLR Market?

[hussain_al_lawati]

This morning, I took street shots with my a9, a Metabones EF-to-E T-adapter MkV and my EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II. I peaked at the results and they look great. If you want to save money on lenses, buy used, top-line lenses.

 

Great! How does canon lenses work with metabones adapters on sony? (auto focus/speed)

[dcstep]

The Nikon 70-200/f2.8 is $2,800, the Canon is $1,900 and the Sony G Master is $2,600. They all have excellent image quality and weight 3.1 to 3.2 lbs. What's your thinking in that regard?

[Robin Smith]

If you're worried about tomorrow, then the only choice is Sony, since their technology is advancing far faster than the other two.

 

A very bold statement indeed. So all photographers will regard Sony as their choice in the future? The only choice? It is trivially true in that 10 years ago they had zero presence, but this is very unlikely to remain the case in the future. Who knows what will happen even in 6 months? The other companies are hardly unaware or incapable.

[dcstep]

Great! How does canon lenses work with metabones adapters on sony? (auto focus/speed)

 

With a wide lens, like the 24-105mm, I notice no difference from using it on my 5D MkIV body, other than I have 693-AF points and it's silent shooting. The Canon body doesn't have eye-detection, but I'd miss that with the Metabones, if I were doing portrait work. Also, face detection with a native Sony lens is simply amazing, so I'd miss that.

 

Sony has announced a 24-105mm G Master lens, so I'll probably buy that when it comes out, to get all of the AF capacity of the a9.

[dcstep]

If you're worried about tomorrow, then the only choice is Sony, since their technology is advancing far faster than the other two.

 

A very bold statement indeed. So all photographers will regard Sony as their choice in the future? The only choice? It is trivially true in that 10 years ago they had zero presence, but this is very unlikely to remain the case in the future. Who knows what will happen even in 6 months? The other companies are hardly unaware or incapable.

 

Not so bold, given Sony's momentum and incredibly successful implementation of mirrorless technology, while Canon and Nikon were hampered by their legacy DSLR investments. Sony is several laps around the track as Canon and Nikon are barely out of the starting blocks. Yes, I think that both Canon and Nikon received a wake-up call and will start reacting. Canon, in particular, has the resources to compete in the professional mirrorless world, but we're still talking two-years out, most likely. We'll see, but, right now, I have to go with momentum and Sony has it all.

[Trigger_Happy]

How does it work with mirrorless and sensor cleaning? Does it require more frequent cleaning? Is there some sort of surface that is resistant to frequent (at least more frequent than DSLRs) cleaning?

 

An ant flew into my body once... scared me good when I saw the ant in the viewfinder. I could easily get it out of there though. So what about the sensors being exposed every time you change the lens?

[Wouter Willemse]

Sure Sony moves at a solid speed, yet in some areas they're still catching up, the completeness of the system cannot yet compete with Canon or Nikon, and the Sony professional services are brand new - the other two, for better or worse, have solid experience in that area. So blank statements like "sony is the future" and camera X is a "game changer" - let the future do its thing, and we'll see where the pieces fall.

 

For the OP, basically it puts way too much emnphasis on the body. You make a choice for an entire system - lenses, flashes, services, availability of rental lenses etc. etc. Today's most advanced body will be overtaken tomorrow, and so everything moves on an on. So you cannot know which company is going to be the best in a few years, nobody knows (and any claim otherwise is fanboyism). And does it really matter? Do you really need the latest and greatest, or can you actually get the job done with whatever you already have? Spending a lot of money on gear isn't going to make you a better photographer, having the latest and greatest body isn't going to make your photos any better than those made with much cheaper and older gear. It may improve your chances of getting the right image, but at the centre of it, all bodies mentioned in this thread are absolutely great tools - if you cannot get a decent photo with any of these cameras, the problem is certainly not the gear.

 

Given you already have a Canon system, assuming you already have Canon lenses which work for you, the obvious choice is sticking with Canon. The only serious reason to change systems would be if you really dislike the way your Canon handles and feels, or that you find you cannot get an essential piece to work with your gear (extremely unlikely with Canon, frankly). Dumping a lot of money on switching to Nikon or Sony because today they have a body that may have better specs (on paper at least) is short term thinking, and a costly joke - next year, when Canon releases a new body, will you switch back again?

 

Have you held any of these bodies in your hands, tried them for yourself? If not, that should be the very first thing to do. In my hands, the Sony cameras are too small, and I still find EVFs not as nice as OVFs - this is a thing you can only decide for yourself, and see for yourself. So, start there, and then see if it makes any sense to move away from Canon at all.

[dcstep]

How does it work with mirrorless and sensor cleaning? Does it require more frequent cleaning? Is there some sort of surface that is resistant to frequent (at least more frequent than DSLRs) cleaning?

 

An ant flew into my body once... scared me good when I saw the ant in the viewfinder. I could easily get it out of there though. So what about the sensors being exposed every time you change the lens?

 

I've got over 20,000-shots on my a9 and I've had to blow off one spot on the sensor. It has a mirror clean mode, which vibrates the sensor, like on the Canon's; however, it's not automatic, so I activate it several times per week. Of course, it's simpler to clean, because there's nothing to get out of the way. I don't remember reading anything about the sensor surface being resistant to dust.

 

I use the same caution as I do with my Canons.

[dcstep]

Wouter, your points are valid, but I doubt that either Nikon or Canon is close to approaching Sony's AF system on the a9.

 

I think the OP is trying to make a system choice; hence, the focus on including Sony. A year ago, I don't think that Sony would have belonged in this discussion.

 

With the G Master 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm and 100-400mm, one can argue that they do have a system, only missing a super-telephoto or two. They've committed to be at the next Olympics and they are very seriously courting wildlife and sports photographers, so I think the super-telephotos are in the near distant offing. However, most photographers don't need those super-telephoto lenses. When I put my Canon 500/f4 on my Sony, I don't lose any functionality over the same lens on my Canon body, I only lose the extra capabilities (693-AF points, lock-on tracking, eye-detection) of the a9.

 

The FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS, plus the FE 1.4x teleconverter is an incredible sports lens.

[Thomas J.]

How does it work with mirrorless and sensor cleaning? Does it require more frequent cleaning? Is there some sort of surface that is resistant to frequent (at least more frequent than DSLRs) cleaning?

 

An ant flew into my body once... scared me good when I saw the ant in the viewfinder. I could easily get it out of there though. So what about the sensors being exposed every time you change the lens?

 

 

Good point. When I'm shooting weddings, I often changes lenses and never turn the camera off, indoors or outdoors, wherever....no time to flip switches, so I'm sticking with Canon, of course. I shudder to think if I had to do the same with a mirrorless system and that exposed sensor. Yikes.

 

Also, Wouter Willimse said it perfectly up above and pretty much won the debate: "Spending a lot of money on gear isn't going to make you a better photographer, having the latest and greatest body isn't going to make your photos any better than those made with much cheaper and older gear."

[dcstep]

Good point. When I'm shooting weddings, I often changes lenses and never turn the camera off, indoors or outdoors, wherever....no time to flip switches, so I'm sticking with Canon, of course. I shudder to think if I had to do the same with a mirrorless system and that exposed sensor. Yikes.

 

Also, Wouter Willimse said it perfectly up above and pretty much won the debate: "Spending a lot of money on gear isn't going to make you a better photographer, having the latest and greatest body isn't going to make your photos any better than those made with much cheaper and older gear."

 

LOL. I can picture you now, changing lenses with wedding cake crumbs falling off your face into your DSLR and then you shake them out before putting on the next lens. ;-)

 

I'm certain that brides, grooms and their parents will love silent shutters. I wouldn't be surprised if, in three to five-years, they're mandated for press conferences, golf tournaments and other events where clacking 1DXs are a pain in the ear.

 

In this case, I think Wouter is wrong. The AF system of the a9, with eye-detection and long-distance face detection will make your wedding photography easier and better. As a bird-in-flight photographer, Sony's several lock-on tracking modes has raised my keeper rate substantially, while 20-fps has allowed me to fine tune wing and head position selection. Silent shutter allows me to shoot big white-tail deer bucks at close range, without startling them with mirror-slap. I say this not as a newbie, but as someone with many hundreds of thousands of shots under my belt with DSLRs, with a growing stock archive that's selling in a highly competitive market. I may not be the best in the world, but I do know what I'm doing and art directors do buy my work. The a9 is not a small, incremental change, but a game-changing innovation.

[Wouter Willemse]

In this case, I think Wouter is wrong

 

So I am wrong because the A9 is a better camera for you?

Believe me, it is not very likely to be a better camera for me, as I'd end up paying for a lot of features that do absolutely nothing for me, while it still doesn't give me the handling I like (if it's anything like an A7 anyway), nor the OVF I want. So, maybe I am wrong for your specific needs. But I wasn't talking about your needs at all, I was answering the original question, and I think the counter-argument to simply stick to what you already own can't be called "wrong". You don't have to agree anyway, it's more for the OP to consider the options on the table. There is more than one way to look at it, and I do hope those differing views can be expressed without resorting to saying somebody is wrong, just because he doesn't recommend the same thing as you do.

[dcstep]

So I am wrong because the A9 is a better camera for you?

Believe me, it is not very likely to be a better camera for me, as I'd end up paying for a lot of features that do absolutely nothing for me, while it still doesn't give me the handling I like (if it's anything like an A7 anyway), nor the OVF I want. So, maybe I am wrong for your specific needs. But I wasn't talking about your needs at all, I was answering the original question, and I think the counter-argument to simply stick to what you already own can't be called "wrong". You don't have to agree anyway, it's more for the OP to consider the options on the table. There is more than one way to look at it, and I do hope those differing views can be expressed without resorting to saying somebody is wrong, just because he doesn't recommend the same thing as you do.

 

The a9 is considerably improved from the a7 and even the a7III doesn't have the AF capabilities of the a9.

 

You said, "...having the latest and greatest body isn't going to make your photos any better than those made with much cheaper and older gear." That did not have any qualifier about you or me. Gear with more accurate and quicker AF, more accurate viewfinder, better dynamic range, superior IQ lenses, etc. will make better pictures, easier for newbie or pro. Some people enjoy tying one hand behind their backs and manual focusing and working around poor dynamic range and low resolution, but that doesn't make them a better photographer.

 

Back to our OP. He said he's going to be shooting sports, so, if we must relate "betterness" to a specific user, then, for him, he'll get better images with a camera with superior AF, good high-ISO performance, higher frame rate and excellent resolution.

[Nick D.]

If you're worried about tomorrow, then the only choice is Sony, since their technology is advancing far faster than the other two.

Sony is such huge multi faced conglomerate, if you worried about tomorrow, be advised Sony can damp their photo business anytime and investors wouldn't even notice. That's differentiate Sony from Nikon or Canon, Sony already changed lens mount ones, leaving holders of expensive lenses behind.

[dcstep]

Sony is such huge multi faced conglomerate, if you worried about tomorrow, be advised Sony can damp their photo business anytime and investors wouldn't even notice. That's differentiate Sony from Nikon or Canon, Sony already changed lens mount ones, leaving holders of expensive lenses behind.

 

Canon is huge also. Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. have all changed lens mounts. Also, all the EF Canon lenses function as well on Sony as they do on their native bodies.

[Thomas J.]

LOL. I can picture you now, changing lenses with wedding cake crumbs falling off your face into your DSLR and then you shake them out before putting on the next lens. ;-)

 

You can't picture anything pal, I don't think you're funny, and I don't even eat cake when I shoot weddings. I guess amateurs like you wouldn't know that during wedding shoots there's hardly any time to even eat an hors d'oeuvre never mind cake.

 

I'm certain that brides, grooms and their parents will love silent shutters. I wouldn't be surprised if, in three to five-years, they're mandated for press conferences, golf tournaments and other events where clacking 1DXs are a pain in the ear.

 

You really should stop showing your ignorance. Canons have silent shutter modes which us professional shooters employ often.

[dcstep]

 

You really should stop showing your ignorance. Canons have silent shutter modes which us professional shooters employ often.

 

LOL again. At least I know the difference between silent and "less loud."

[Robin Smith]

I don't think that this blanket statement is necessarily true. The reports of how well Canon lenses function with metabones adapters are quite variable. It is interesting how some people think lens x works perfectly, whereas others say AF is slow or does not work at all. Even if they are using the same Canon body. It is a mystery how people can have different experiences. Admittedly most of these reports are with the MB IV, but it is still rather baffling. Maybe the V has solved all these issues, but reports of the IV suggest some skepticism should remain. I still maintain that "the future belongs to Sony" is hyperbolic, as good as they are.

[dcstep]

I don't think that this blanket statement is necessarily true. The reports of how well Canon lenses function with metabones adapters are quite variable. It is interesting how some people think lens x works perfectly, whereas others say AF is slow or does not work at all. Even if they are using the same Canon body. It is a mystery how people can have different experiences. Admittedly most of these reports are with the MB IV, but it is still rather baffling. Maybe the V has solved all these issues, but reports of the IV suggest some skepticism should remain.

 

Good point Robin.

 

In my reviews I've been very specific, referring to the Sony a9, Metabones EF-to-E T-adapter MkV rig, combined with EF 500mm f/4L IS II, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, EF 14mm f/2.8L II, EF 1.4x TC-III and EF 2.0x TC-III. All work at least as well as with the EF lenses on a 5d MkIV, some much better, such as all the shorter lenses take full advantage of the 693-AF points of the a9.

 

When you go to native FE lenses on the a9, then you gain several "lock-on" AF modes, which are truly astounding. Canon has nothing to match. You also gain face detection and eye detection. I'm amazed that face detection is picking up faces more than 50-yards away. Eye detect, in normal portrait situations is wonderful. When you combine those with "lock-on" AF tracking, it's luxurious.

 

Back to Metabones. When I tried the MkIV with my long lenses, it was very inconsistent, even with the July 2017 firmware update. I didn't try it with my shorter lenses.

 

I think that Metabones has worked very hard to solve the Canon EF-to-E problem. That doesn't mean that any EF-to-E, such as Tamron or Sigma, will work equally well. You'll need to have someone give you a report about a specific lens. The long lenses present particular challenges. Each lens has different firmware.

 

Here's a handheld shot from last night, with a9, Metabones V, EF 500 II, EF 2.0x TC-III shot. Easy as pie:

 

Waxing Gibbous Moon (Explored) by David Stephens, on Flickr

Edited October 30, 2017 by dcstep

[Robin Smith]

The A9 is really nice, I agree. I particularly like the continuous non blackout viewing. Takes me back to my days with the Leica Ms in that regard.

[hussain_al_lawati]

The Nikon 70-200/f2.8 is $2,800, the Canon is $1,900 and the Sony G Master is $2,600. They all have excellent image quality and weight 3.1 to 3.2 lbs. What's your thinking in that regard?

I will go for the native lens of the camera i will buy

[hussain_al_lawati]

For the OP, basically it puts way too much emnphasis on the body. You make a choice for an entire system - lenses, flashes, services, availability of rental lenses etc. etc. Today's most advanced body will be overtaken tomorrow, and so everything moves on an on. So you cannot know which company is going to be the best in a few years, nobody knows (and any claim otherwise is fanboyism).

Great Reply!

Totally agreeing to what u said

 

Do you really need the latest and greatest, or can you actually get the job done with whatever you already have? Spending a lot of money on gear isn't going to make you a better photographer, having the latest and greatest body isn't going to make your photos any better than those made with much cheaper and older gear. It may improve your chances of getting the right image, but at the centre of it, all bodies mentioned in this thread are absolutely great tools - if you cannot ge

But in my case, I need high fps rate (for action shots) and good low light performance (for night sports and events) so a decent body will be essential.

Sure Sony moves at a solid speed, yet in some areas they're still catching up, the completeness of the system cannot yet compete with Canon or Nikon, and the Sony professional services are brand new - the other two, for better or worse, have solid experience in that area. So blank statements like "sony is the future" and camera X is a "game changer" - let the future do its thing, and we'll see where the pieces fall.

 

For the OP, basically it puts way too much emnphasis on the body. You make a choice for an entire system - lenses, flashes, services, availability of rental lenses etc. etc. Today's most advanced body will be overtaken tomorrow, and so everything moves on an on. So you cannot know which company is going to be the best in a few years, nobody knows (and any claim otherwise is fanboyism). And does it really matter? Do you really need the latest and greatest, or can you actually get the job done with whatever you already have? Spending a lot of money on gear isn't going to make you a better photographer, having the latest and greatest body isn't going to make your photos any better than those made with much cheaper and older gear. It may improve your chances of getting the right image, but at the centre of it, all bodies mentioned in this thread are absolutely great tools - if you cannot get a decent photo with any of these cameras, the problem is certainly not the gear.

 

Given you already have a Canon system, assuming you already have Canon lenses which work for you, the obvious choice is sticking with Canon. The only serious reason to change systems would be if you really dislike the way your Canon handles and feels, or that you find you cannot get an essential piece to work with your gear (extremely unlikely with Canon, frankly). Dumping a lot of money on switching to Nikon or Sony because today they have a body that may have better specs (on paper at least) is short term thinking, and a costly joke - next year, when Canon releases a new body, will you switch back again?

 

Have you held any of these bodies in your hands, tried them for yourself? If not, that should be the very first thing to do. In my hands, the Sony cameras are too small, and I still find EVFs not as nice as OVFs - this is a thing you can only decide for yourself, and see for yourself. So, start there, and then see if it makes any sense to move away from Canon at all.

 

I really love canon and am comfortable with it. But the only full frame lens i own is the 50mm f1,4 so its not a big deal to change systems. I have tried a 5diii and an a7rii and both were great.

[hussain_al_lawati]

I think the OP is trying to make a system choice; hence, the focus on including Sony. A year ago, I don't think that Sony would have belonged in this discussion.

 

With the G Master 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm and 100-400mm, one can argue that they do have a system, only missing a super-telephoto or two. They've committed to be at the next Olympics and they are very seriously courting wildlife and sports photographers, so I think the super-telephotos are in the near distant offing. However, most photographers don't need those super-telephoto lenses. When I put my Canon 500/f4 on my Sony, I don't lose any functionality over the same lens on my Canon body, I only lose the extra capabilities (693-AF points, lock-on tracking, eye-detection) of the a9.

 

The FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS, plus the FE 1.4x teleconverter is an incredible sports lens.

 

The thing that lets me stick to sony is their outstanding focus performance that i will need for sports

(693-AF points, lock-on tracking, eye-detection)

as well as the blackout free viewfinder.

Otherwise I don't see big differences between the 3 bodies

(correct me if i am mistaken, keeping in mind my uses are sports and events mainly)

[Jochen_S]

i think the debte will be now "A7riii vs D850 vs 5DIV"

If I still had my money, I might spend it on the R III but would want to get reviews of it first. R II low light AF performance reviews didn't convince me and I was still burned from my X-E1 experience.

Upon the future: Nobody knows anything. - Sony seem to have goals. Samsung had goals too, built a still decent crop sensor MILC and tossed the towel. I guess Nikon and Canon are likely to stay around for 2 generations (of cameras) or 3. <- That was intentionally pessimistic! Each brand has homework to do. "Homework" takes some companies longer than others. - In a worst case you have to wait a couple of years till they get hold of a feature offered by others and maybe for a follow up generation of the camera where it got implemented to really benefit from it. But once you have something to shoot all of that matters less.

Upon pricing of lenses: Double check who is beating dead horses and who is at least trying to feed the insane pixelpitches sold. - To put this into harsh words: Yongnuo are selling knock offs of classic Canon glass at a comparably nice looking price. Reviews seem to agree upon: AF slower than Canon's, lens performance not really great. Both Canon, Nikon (and apparently Pentax too?) are selling a line of affordable heritage primes, dating back to film days. I haven't tested the SLR stuff but can confirm: Old film lenses don't need to look bad on a 18MP sensor (Zeiss Konica Leica in my case) but the Leica bodies were made and tweaked to make best use of them and the digitals we are talking about here were constructed for something else.

So with every focal length you are pondering to purchase you face the same homework; find

• sharpness / resolution review?
  
• AF performance comparisons?
  
• Bokeh, micro contrast & similar "mythical features" ratings?
  

And then you'll have to choose wisely and most likely pick a compromise.

Lens pricing's impact is relative. Who starts out with 2 cheap zooms, switches to inexpensive primes (35, 50, 85/1.8-2) decides to test the fastest L glass for bokeh adds fast zooms and later finds a need to cater a 5DS R Mk ii or III's megapixels with resolution will end spending more than somebody buying each focal length just twice.

One issue I noticed: Canon seem priced aggressively at 1 Euro = 1US$, while Sony charge more in the Euro realm. - How does your market look like?

[dcstep]

The thing that lets me stick to sony is their outstanding focus performance that i will need for sports

(693-AF points, lock-on tracking, eye-detection)

as well as the blackout free viewfinder.

Otherwise I don't see big differences between the 3 bodies

(correct me if i am mistaken, keeping in mind my uses are sports and events mainly)

 

I'd only add that the WYSIWYG EVF, with 3.8mp OLED screen makes the Canon optical viewfinder seem archaic. I still carry a Canon body along with my a9. Every time I put the Canon to my eye I'm thinking, "Where's the ISO, where's the SS, where's the aperture?" It's there, but I'm trying to find it on a dim LCD, instead of a bright and big OLED. Also, with the Canon, you can see your settings, but you can't see the results. With Sony's OLED EVF, you see the result of any change in EV immediately. Even if you've forgotten to check your manual settings, with the Sony, as soon as you put the camera to your eye, you'll see it and start making corrections.

 

Still, you're right, the AF is the biggest reason to consider the Sony a9.

 

About the R III, for sports and wildlife, it doesn't look like it'll be in the same league with the a9. For many people, that's okay and they'll go for the resolution of an R III or 850. I'm seriously considering my second Sony body, but, right now, I think it'll be another a9. I'll keep either my 5D MkIV or 5DS-R for landscape and travel.