Looking into upgrading from my Canon 5d Mark II and seriously considering either of these as the replacement. I own a bunch of Canon L series lenses so I am thinking about staying with a Canon body...but the Sony is interesting to me. I have seen people using their Canon lenses on the Sony A7.

I like that the 7D has so many autofocus points as I use my camera at work when wildlife shows up.

Is the Sony that much better...using Canon lenses? Or will I need to sell off all of my things and purchase the Sony lenses ($$$$)

I bought an A7 IV with the Sony 24-70 zoom and a couple of Sony primes a few months ago. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between the III and the IV. I also own a 5D MK II, a 5D MK IV and a lot of Canon L glass.

The Canon glass works great on the Sony. Sigma makes a converter that sells for around $250 or the Meta-Bones is $400. The low-light capabilities of the Sony are excellent. Build quality also excellent.

I don't think you can go wrong either way. The Sony is smaller and lighter especially with the smaller Sony primes. The Sony zooms are bigger and heavier but not as big and heavy as most L glass.

A year after I originally made this thread and I think I am going to make the upgrade this week. Seriously considering the 5d MK IV still. I'd love to try the Sony but the Sony + the converter is a little more than I am wanting to spend.

Everyone is still saying Sony is leading the pack for the mirrorless/digital photography world. I may be stepping into 2nd (or 3rd) place if I end up getting the Mark IV...but the AF and other updates since my 5d II's may still make the leap a huge upgrade....for me.

I have cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony.

All the top models.

Right now I only use the Sony a7R IV.

It is absolutely fantastic.

I only use Sony lenses.

On both Canon and Nikon, I also use only their lenses.

I have given up using third party lenses many years ago.

They might have gotten better now, but I still stick to the fastest lens I can get in the range I want from the same manufacturer.

That's how I feel as well. I'd rather see Canon body and Canon lens. Id have to sell all of my Canon lenses and that may get me 1 or 2 Sony lenses with the Sony body if I did that

quote:

Originally posted by Buglemintoday:
That's how I feel as well. I'd rather see Canon body and Canon lens. Id have to sell all of my Canon lenses and that may get me 1 or 2 Sony lenses with the Sony body if I did that

You could always switch to a mirrorless camera (Sony, Nikon, or Canon). These cameras have a full size sensor instead of the cropped sensor of the 7DII. But going from a 1.6x cropped sensor to a FF sensor will require that you buy longer lenses.

For example, lest say that you mount a 100mm lens on your 7DII. In this case, it somewhat is similar to having a 160mm lens mounted on this camera (100mm x 1.6 sensor). The same lens mounted on a Canon R6 (new mirrorless camera) is 100mm, so you lose 60mm (100mm x 1 sensor).

By the way, I use Canon cameras, but in addition to Canon lenses I have one Rokinon lens for astro photography, and a Tokina lens for taking photos of the Auroras. These are specialized lenses that have very wide apertures that give you outstanding IQ while less costly than Canon lenses. Sigma, Tamrom, Rokinon, and Tokina produce some lenses that equal or surpass the IQ of similar Nikon, Sony, and Canon lenses. All depends on with lens you buy.

Now, I can use all the EF lenses that I have on my Canon R6 with a Canon adapter EF-R. This is a lens adapter that allows for mounting all the existing canon lenses EF, EF-S, etc.):

a. Tokina 16-28mm SWA
b. Canon 100mm macro
c. Canon 135mm f/2L
d. Canon 200mm f/2.8L
e. Canon 70-200mm f/4L
f. Canon 400mm f/4.5-6L

The R6 has a R mount, while the 7D has an EF mount, so in order to use the EF lenses like the ones you have now, one has to buy the EF-R lens adapter, but all the lens functions are maintained. Since the R6 uses both body and lens IS, even non-IS lenses benefit from the body image stabilization.

I decided to buy the full frame R6 and use all the lenses I have been using on a 7D and 5DII, but since the zoom range of my lenses is up to 400mm, I also bought a Canon RF 100-500mm lens.

As it is now, I will continue using the Canon 7D, 5D, and R6 depending on the type of photography I engage on, but I can't use the new RF lens with the 7D and 5DII since there isn't an adapter for it. The R6 uses a battery that is of higher capacity than the one on the 7D and 5DII. But if the battery on my R6 is discharged, I can still use the batteries I have in my 7D and 5DII, except that these two have lesser capacity than the one in the R6.

Changing lens mount systems is always a pain in the wallet. I started out with a Canon (and I mean 55 years ago) when the lens mount gave its name to the camera. The lenses had a breech type mount that could never wear out or get loose over time. I was so pissed with Canon when they dropped it that I went over to Nikon. And Nikon, until a couple of years ago, kept the F mount for what seemed like forever. Until the Z cameras.

I have accumulated so many excellent Nikkor F mount lenses over the years that I hesitate to move to the lighter more compact Nikon Z mount mirrorless bodies and the new Z lenses, even though they're showing some of the best measured optical results of any mass produced camera lenses today. Here's the appropriate anecdote:

Years ago Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller are invited to a gala lunch by a wealthy hedge fund manager. Kurt says to Joseph, "you know our host made more money in one day than you did from all the money you made on 'Catch 22'". Joseph's reply, "that may be, but I have something he'll never have....: enough".

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Changing lens mount systems is always a pain in the wallet. I started out with a Canon (and I mean 55 years ago) when the lens mount gave its name to the camera. The lenses had a breech type mount that could never wear out or get loose over time. I was so pissed with Canon when they dropped it that I went over to Nikon. And Nikon, until a couple of years ago, kept the F mount for what seemed like forever. Until the Z cameras.

I have accumulated so many excellent Nikkor F mount lenses over the years that I hesitate to move to the lighter more compact Nikon Z mount mirrorless bodies and the new Z lenses, even though they're showing some of the best measured optical results of any mass produced camera lenses today. Here's the appropriate anecdote:

Years ago Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller are invited to a gala lunch by a wealthy hedge fund manager. Kurt says to Joseph, "you know our host made more money in one day than you did from all the money you made on 'Catch 22'". Joseph's reply, "that may be, but I have something he'll never have....: enough".

I assume that existing Nikon lenses should work well on the mirrorless Z-series as long as you use the adapter. All my older Canon lenses, and a couple of third party ones that have Canon mounts work perfectly "adapted" to my R6's RF mount. The R6 uses IBIS (in body IS)in connection with lens IS. Is even lenses that don't have IS are aided by the body IS.

If the Nikon Z-series have both IBIS and the lens IS, I can only assume that the camera use both, just like the Canon R5 and R6.

Z lenses benefit from 5 axis stabilization in the Z camera bodies. If you use F mount lenses on a Z camera you only get 3 axis IBIS. If you use an F mount lens that has VR then you get 3 axis plus the lens VR. At least that’s how I understand it.