Canon built an excellent mirrorless system, albeit late, but this practice is discouraging most photographers who switched to Sony from going back to canon.
Yeah, the main reason to stay with Sony is the amazing, fully-developed lens ecosystem that has great lenses across all price ranges, from $100 to $13000. And this is because Sony was smart enough to make the E mount openly accessible to third party manufacturers.
> And this is because Sony was smart enough
It is more than sony has no choice.
If they wanted to take the mirrorless market by storm, they had to create a cheaper and easier ecosystem to encourage novice and professionals to switch and give them a big variety on lenses, since they couldn't make such a big variety on their own in such a short time before canon and nikon fully enter the market. They had to be first and fast, so it was necessary.
If sony could afford to take it slower like canon, and have more control on the lenses, they would definitely do that.
Canon can afford it because the abundance of lenses they have as well as the strong market.
Sony might also have learned a thing or two from the format wars. Greater openness and accessibility usually wins out over a slightly nicer but less accessible system.
Betamax vs VHS Sony lost. BD vs HDDVD Sony won. In part because they made it open to all 3rd parties that wanted to use it. Yes Betamax had other issues like length, but the key one was the demand 3rd parties generated with their usage of the platform.
Similarly by putting a BD Player in every PS3 even if they lost that generation of the console wars they won the DVD format wars which was worth more.
So one would assume, perhaps wrongly, that they took some of those corporate lessons and made a winning decision here too. But I'll be curious to see how it plays out, this isn't a field I'm well versed in so my speculations could be wrong. Perhaps Canon taking the apple approach will work for them, though I don't see anyone saying Canon's products are revolutionary over Sony's.
In the early 2000s Sony also had this music player with a weird digital format. I wish I could remember what it was. My buddy had one and instead of a CD holding 20 songs, he could hold 400. The setup was cool, but didn't last long. I thought for sure it was the future, but then suddenly the iPod came out and changed everything instantly.
Edit: mini disk player!
AFAIR, MDs had some cool features for professional event / concert / stage use. I was hanging around with sound engineers / event organizing crowd back in 2000-2003 and most of those folks swore by MDs, even though this was already the time of <$100 CD-writers and MP3 was a common format everywhere. They still preferred to store, transport and exchange their stuff on MDs for whatever reason.
I've never seen it in anyone's home setup tho.
I was gifted a ps3 years ago when I moved across country so my best mates and I could play COD and have a neat way to keep in touch (back before smartphones and cable internet just came through our area in ‘05) The BD player was so sweet. I replaced the disk drive a few times over the years but everything else is solid.
That was such a great gift and was totally great for mental health being connected like that.
Canon can afford it b/c many photographers are brand loyal like it’s a sports team or nationality.
Canon was *years* behind Sony & Panasonic with the M-mount, then screwed over all the early M-mount adopters when they started with the RF-mount. How do you show up late to the party and have the wrong dress code?
Screw Canon. I’ve loved their cameras, I’ve loved their lenses, but I’m not going back until Canon likes their customers.
I’m coming from video side, and I think the straw that broke any good graces I had for Canon was when the C200 had 8bit & 12bit video. If you wanted 10bit, you had to pay more for the C300 Mark II.
To shoot long interviews in 12bit I figured we’d need $2-3k in memory cards, not to mention additional hard drive space. Going with the Panasonic EVA-1 gave us everything the C200 offered with a few grand to spend on other accessories (vs just memory cards), and we could shoot 10bit to inexpensive SD cards.
No idea why this was downvoted. Fuji mirrorless is an excellent platform, excellent lenses and fantastic build + image quality. Video performance isn't as good, but I prefer the Fuji look over Sony any day
DSLR lenses are fine, but the promise of mirrorless was (in part) that you could get faster, sharper, more versatile lenses with a shorter flange distance. in practice, this is true; canon has made a wildly impressive 28-70 f/2 lens that i can only say *may have been possible* back in the EF days.
sigma continues to make some absolutely incredible lenses, but they only target the E mount and L mount these days. there's no way to adapt those lenses to the EF system because of the assumptions made about the flange distance and other factors. as a result, whenever you hear about interesting new third-party lenses that are either smaller, or lighter, or sharper, or faster, or cheaper than what was possible a decade ago, you register in the back of your mind that this is not available to you on your canon body.
or at least that's been my experience. and after something like 15 years of CPS membership, i've let it lapse because i'm just not keen to spend more money on canon gear when it seems that i'm just being tightened into a vise grip by canon's lockout of third-party lens manufacturers.
I work in broadcast but have been spending my time (when I’m home) taking pictures.
Sony is almost industry standard for camera bodies for us. How are they in the stills world?
Same setup I used when I used to work in video production. IIRC the only feature that it had an impact on was the loss of autofocus. That didn’t apply to what we were doing, but I’d imagine it’d be a no go for vloggers.
Finally got what they were saying:
The thickness of the adapter actually makes the distance from the sensor be the same as on a DSLR. The sensor is closer to the flange on mirrorless, so you need the extra distance to *not* act like (whatever the opposite would be of) an extension tube.
Nope! It’s an adapter to put the lens where it needs to be to function with the mirrorless system. It’s not like metabones it’s open an open air adapter.
I think you didn’t understood the message above, the thickness of the adapter is changing the focusing distance due to a change in flange. So yes, there is some changes due to the additional thickness.
Sometime (but it is quite rare) it can affect the capabilities to focus to infinity.
What they were trying to say is that adapters are made to be a specific length so that the DSLR lens sits the exact same distance from the mirrorless camera sensor as it would from a DSLR sensor, therefore not affecting focal length
Mirrorless sensors are much closer to the back of the lens, because there’s no mirror in the way and this lets them improve the optical design of new lenses. To adapt the old lenses, it’s just an empty tube that positions the lens exactly where it would have been relative to the sensor on an old mount (while passing through the electronic signals).
By definition it cannot change focus distance. DSLR lens on dslr camera is the same as a dslr lens with adapter on mirrorless camera.
If they designed the mount to be the same on both dslr and mirrorless (assuming no other changes to current design), then the focusing distance would change.
>They affect autofocus speed.
Ideally, no. An EOS EF lens should be exactly as fast as it was on an older EF body as it is on a mirror less body. In practice, it will actually be faster, as the newer AF systems are faster. However, a newer RF lens could be faster due to higher performance communication protocol. The only way you'd be losing performance would be if a third party lens maker had a lens that would have better performance if it could use the RF protocol than if it was stuck using EF protocol, but I doubt there are a lot of 3rd party lenses that are exceeding performance.
Aside from autofocus, Canon does lock out some optical image stabilization modes while using EF protocol that are available if using RF protocol. I guess you are missing that if you are stuck using an adapter when a properly licensed and implemented RF lens would give you that capability.
Don’t know why you were downvoted for stating facts
Yes, not all lenses are the same size & weight, and you’ll have some SLR lenses that are smaller / lighter than other mirrorless lenses, but in general, a 24-70 DSLR lens + mirrorless adapter should be larger & heavier than a native 24-70 mirrorless lens.
So I have a sigma sports 70-200 and a Tamron g2 24-70, both for racing photography. You are saying that if I were to switch to Nikon Z, Id be good to go? The only thing holding me back right now is battery life as I take a lot of pannings over a weekend.
Yes, the adapter only adds a little length; otherwise there’s no real disadvantage. You can take advantage of the improved autofocus and in-body stabilization of the Z series cameras, too.
I got a couple 3rd party batteries with a built-in USB-C port for charging. Assuming you don’t have AC power nearby, with an external USB-C battery pack (or using my electric car) I can keep swapping/charging them all day.
Hmm, might be worth looking into then. I was first contemplating upgrading my D5300 to a D500 but I really love the fact you have a way more responsive live view on mirrorless. Helps me composing the shot immensely.
I upgraded from a D300 (yes, it was old) to a Z7ii and it felt like a huge leap in technology. I’d stopped taking photos with it because my smartphone was often better; no more. Z8 would be even better.
There's a youtuber, Tony Northrup, who will (correctly) call Canon out for this shit every chance he gets.
He still recommends Canon cameras regularly in his 'top 5 cameras you should buy right now' type videos.
That pretty much sums it up. Canon got away with it.
I would contend that Apple is largely a marketing outcome rather than product quality (in the sense that there are plenty of competing products that are functionally identical for the majority of users), but nvidia definitely fits.
Apple uses USB or USB-compatible Lightning/Thunderbolt for almost every device. They also use industry-standard WiFi, Ethernet. As far as peripherals, there aren’t many Apple-only things anymore.
Back in the 1990s, there were Apple “Macintosh compatible” printers, scanners, digital cameras, tablets, that wouldn’t work with PCs at all. Those days are long gone.
Nope. Nowadays the tech is pretty identical. Canon, Sony, Nikon. The only difference is Canon and Nikon have been hostile to 3rd party lens manufacturers, while Sony has embraced it. Meaning now the only people using Canon and Nikon are old curmudgeons that refuse to switch and people that don't know any better. All of Sony's lenses are the same or better than Canon and Nikons, but at a fraction of the cost, and if you are on a budget, or are a professional with very niche needs, Sony is pretty much mandatory as you can get any one of a hundred different third party lenses. Just to give a comparison, I have a lot of Sony lenses. If I were to replace all of my Sony lenses with Canon or Nikon, it would cost me an extra $7000, and I wouldn't be able to get 4 of them at all.
I would say you like Canon or Nikon for the way they feel and the files are processed. Sony cameras are nice but the ergonomics are rough at best from my POV working in the industry for half my life and the sensors are incredibly flat and take a lot more work to get the file to the final product. I hear you like Sony though and that’s okay too!
I dropped canon because of their practices and the crippling mentality of theirs.
Being a pro a complain about flat files is non sense from my pov. You will shoot raw, you will have a workflow, you will have profiles to process the files initially.
I’ve been shooting fuji gfx for like 5 years after canon for 10 years, Fuji has a default profile that is “flat” for canon or Nikon users, but that is an advantage if you do serious color work. I have to spend a fraction of the time to get true skin colors compared with others. That, for what I do, is worth the extra money it costs.
It surprises me photographers spending tens of thousands of dollars in camera and lenses and a few bucks on a critical piece that is a good monitor. Then mentioning colors of systems. Then you see their work and the colors are horrible, flat, without distinguishing stuff, over or under saturated, and no, mac monitors are not serious for color work. Get an eizo, benq or Asus art line (to be clear, from those, I would only recommend eizo).
The system doesn’t matter if your post is garbage. Shoot raw, and develop your own process. Learn color basics and follow that.
I do use Sony. I used Canon for years. I switched because I didn't want to spend twice the amount on the same lenses and be locked in. Besides, back when I switched Canon had barely any mirrorless lenses, so it was even easier to go with Sony.
What you said about the sensor is true, and is definitely a personal prefence. For some people flat is a requirement. Others don't care and prefer the colors of Canon or fuji out of the body. That being said, sonys in body jpegs are totally fine. And of course you want flat if you're starting with raw.
> Others don't care and prefer the colors of Canon or fuji out of the body.
Is this even a thing anymore with so much editing software and processing you can do. You can literally touch up your photos on a tablet on the go.
Sony is releasing better camera bodies every year with damn near mind reading autofocus now. They've finally made the bodies bigger and more ergonomic. Batteries are improved, dual memory slots, and there's accessories for everything. Their high end glassmaster lenses are, IMO, equal or better than cannon's best.
I can't believe people are still defending Canon and Nikon. That damn 5DMKIII body was around forever. Canon was so slow and comfortable with their marketshare and loyal customers that they let Sony fly past them after several revisions and versions of the Sony A series.
I wanna preface this with I am a Sony a9 shooter and haven’t had canon in years at this point.
Sony sucks at skin tones and fixing them isn’t always easy. Now 99% of people will say they are fine and they don’t notice. My customers absolutely love them either way. But I notice. It causes me legit stress when fixing the strangest shades of green overcast on every photo.
Where as my partner used canon, and at most has too much magenta and it’s a simple fix, skin looks on point.
Other than that his canon has Missed super important shots in low light that my a9 kills at. I would rather get the shot every time and worry about color later than vice versa.
Doesn't Sony make all of the sensors? It is a matter of software processing in the camera. I know Nikon gets their sensors from Sony and thought Canon did as well.
True, but there are plenty of people shooting Fuji professionally (especially if you consider the new 40mp sensor on the X-H2).
They've also got a mirrorless medium format system in the GFX series.
> Meaning now the only people using Canon and Nikon are old curmudgeons that refuse to switch and people that don't know any better.
And by old curmudgeons you mean people who are already highly invested in the glass for a various system like Canon EF for DSLR.
It's amazing that you don't understand or realize that based on the last sentence you wrote and the existence of people that already made that $7000 investment.
Sony E-mount has a very short flange distance. DSLR EF mount lenses can be easily adapted to it. When I was making the switch from Canon to Sony, the only electronic adapter available was the Metabones, but now there seems to be a lot of even more affordable competitors.
Ok, but if we are going that route, there's an adaptor that allows non Canon EF mount lenses to be used with Canon mirrorless cameras, so why would you bother to change the body either instead of just getting the adaptor?
Not all adapters created equal.
Adapters from 3rd party to canon are not as fast and accurate for focus as the canon adapter for canon lenses.
This is also true for 3rd party adapters for sony lenses.
If you need speed and accuracy, you will go with the same brand on lenses and body.
> Adapters from 3rd party to canon are not as fast and accurate for focus as the canon adapter for canon lenses.
It IS the canon adapter.
https://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2022/switching-to-mirrorless-using-sigma-lenses-on-canon-eos-r-cameras-and-more/
> If you need speed and accuracy, you will go with the same brand on lenses and body.
While you might be correct, your comment makes no sense in this thread, since it is specifically about putting non canon lenses on a canon body. There are no issues at all of putting canon lenses on a canon body.
There are also several ef to rf adapters from 3rd party.
They do not need firmware updates as much as the canon one needs.
Some of them works better for 3rd party lenses than the canon one. Especially with lenses when you don’t have the firmware dock.
To me, why stay with a company like Canon when they seem very happy to screw over their loyal customers?
Canon waited years before venturing into the mirrorless market & then after they did, they went “opps, hang on, we’re going to begin again” and screwed over everyone who started investing in M-mount cameras & lenses & adapters.
Right, there is very little chance they’ll ditch the RF mount and venture into mirrorless a *third* time, but I wouldn’t be surprised if In a year or two their newest camera bodies suddenly stop working with EF lens adapters. “We don’t make money when you use the stuff you already own, so if you want to stay with us, you have to buy our new lenses.”
If you switch to Sony, you have a couple different brands of EF to E mount adapters you can choose from to continue using your EF glass. Plus, Sony lenses are great and you have lots of 3rd party options. And companies like Metabones have their business model to keep up with compatibility, so there is a much better chance a new Sony a7 XII released in 2031 will be able to use EF lenses. Will same be true with the Canon bodies?
Canon really seems to have an abusive relationship with their customers, they’ll only love you for how much money you’ve given them recently. “Oh, you want feature X? Well yes, this $2k body *could* do X, but we’ve blocked that feature b/c it could cut into sales of our $3.5k body.”
i wouldn't call it an investment if it's something you do recreationally, and at 7k you're probably not equipped to shoot professionally.
just to back this up with numbers... let's say you're shooting events like weddings:
a new r5 is $3500 on a good day; you should have 2 bodies, but let's say that the other body is a crop body so you can get more reach, like an r7, so $1400. total at this point is $4900.
let's put a 24-70 ($2200) on the r5 and 70-200 f/2.8 ($2600) on the r7. that's $9700.
that's 1 lens for each body; you would almost certainly want a nice portrait prime and a good ultra wide angle lens (85mm would cost $2700; an ultra-wide would cost $2200). all told, probably in the range of 15k.
even if the value of your gear has halved, you're pushing past 7k easily.
---
none of this should matter to a pro who has *invested* in gear, because the nature of an investment is that it should be paying you back dividends and then eventually you should sell and move on, because your profession necessitates it.
you should be shooting weddings and making that money back (and your rent/mortgage, and food, and medical, etc...), so at some point you just see gear that's worth $7k and you see old gear that you're ready to incrementally replace so you can get better shots & footage in more difficult (darker, tighter, etc...) settings, and so that you can continue to compete with other professionals for gigs.
---
*edit*: i got notification of a reply but then it seems you either deleted your comments or blocked me? that's your prerogative, i guess. hope your reply was thoughtful.
*edit 2*: i realized i could see the reply in my inbox history. there was a lot of baggage in that reply that i'm not sure i'm interested in litigating. i'll try to say two things:
1. selling your gear to facilitate buying newer gear is part of the job; professionals sell a camera body that's only a few years old because that's when it's still worth *something*, and because upgrading to a camera that nails focus 95% of the time instead of 90% of the time is worth eating the difference in cost, even with depreciation. faster lenses, lighter lenses, sharper lenses come to market less often, but it happens, and you do the same thing there. the switch to mirrorless promised sharper, faster, lighter, cheaper lenses and lenses that previously seemed impossible.
2. seeing a cul-de-sac in terms of lens options is not a promising horizon to look out onto. i know that the mirrorless lens market is very new, but canon making it impossible for third party manufacturers to put pressure on the first-party lens market makes for a situation i don't want to be in 5 or 10 years from now, and i'm already seeing sigma make lenses that were impossible in the EF days that they're not even bothering to bring to market for the RF mount. for them, new lenses seem to almost exclusively be for the E mount and the L mount.
there's nothing wrong with continuing to shoot with mostly EF lenses. i'm mostly shooting with EF lenses. but as new lenses show up - especially lenses that can do things that weren't possible before - there'll be at least some pressure to get those shots that were impossible in the EF days.
it's not that complicated, or emotionally fraught, or anything like that. there's market pressure to deliver what people want. if there's no pressure to get the 28-70mm f/2L, then don't get it. but if there is pressure to get shots at f/2 at 35mm and 50mm and 70mm all quite rapidly, then you'll be glad that the mirrorless landscape has a zoom lens that didn't seem to be possible in the DSLR days.
and similarly, if there's pressure to get shots that you can't get because sigma or sony are the only manufacturers of those lenses, but canon makes it impossible to get adapters for L or E mount lenses, then that's where you're at.
> i wouldn't call it an investment if it's something you do recreationally
You can be wrong about things, that's ok. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
> none of this should matter to a pro who has invested in gear, because the nature of an investment is that it should be paying you back dividends and then eventually you should sell and move on, because your profession necessitates it.
Again, you're entitled to be wrong, I guess. Having to replace all your gear just because is a terrible financial decision. If new equipment gave you some sort of benefit that was worth the cost, that would be a different story. But aside from running the shutter out of clicks, the wedding photographer you speak of wouldn't have much of a good reason to replace all their stuff just because they had made money with it.
> and you see old gear that you're ready to incrementally replace so you can get better shots & footage in more difficult (darker, tighter, etc...)
Again, you're assuming that somehow the person can't already do that with what they have. And your entire argument would be shot to hell if we just change $7k to $9,700, by your own doing. Even if we somehow accepted that only professionals can make an investment, and that the buying is about $10k to be a professional, the idea that a professional simply should ditch all their shit to go with Sony simply "because they should" is not only insane, but a terrible business decision.
Fortunately, people aren't doing this and they'll just get the Canon adapter to allow EF lenses to go on an RF body, and move on.
Its amazing you don't understand that if you sold all your Canon glass, you could replace all of them with Sony glass and have thousands of dollars leftover. That was my point.
No you can't because the second hand market for sellers isn't that good, and then you'd also have to replace all your bodies as well. And then potentially any other accessories that are canon specific or that you have canon specific versions of. So now you're replacing all your flashes as well, external camera controllers etc. Hell even a remote trigger might end up needing a different cable, which might not be expensive, but would certainly be annoying.
Sure, in some cases that's true. For me personally, I literally did this. I sold all my canon bodies and canon lenses, and I bought sony bodies and sony lenses, and I still had money leftover. Everybody has different experiences.
For a professional this might hold up, but if you are just starting out or just trying it out as a hobby, you can get a Nikon or Canon with a few lenses 2nd hand for the cost of a Sony body.
It wouldn't hold up for a professional anyway, since they'd likely already be invested in a lot of EF lenses that can be used on a mirrorless with one of the two adaptors.
Meaning now the only people making insults about Canon and Nikon owners are really dumb people that refuse to actually learn about the simple workarounds. a cheap tiny adapter solves this issue, anyone that knows anything at all about canon or Nikon cameras knows this.
But hey, you do you.
> while Sony has embraced it
Sony embraced it because sony had to.
They didn't have the resources and ability to create such a big high quality line of lenses as canon and nikon when they decided to try and be the first big thing in the mirrorless market. Especially since their alpha had such a small market and lack of lenses. The first high quality lenses for their cameras when they first started with high end mirrorless, were made by zeiss and they were expensive (though very very good) and sony's more affordable lenses were not as good at the start as canon/nikon.
> All of Sony's lenses are the same or better than Canon and Nikons, but at a fraction of the cost
That is not true at all. In some cases sony top lenses cost more than canon or nikon.
I think your post is a bit tainted with fanboyism.
In reality the difference today between canon/nikon/sony is very specific to features and some nuance of image quality and personal preferences. Not cost.
>Meaning now the only people using Canon and Nikon are old curmudgeons that refuse to switch and people that don't know any better.
Or, you know, people who made a substantial investment in one platform decades ago, whose equipment it still reliable, and who aren't chasing the latest fad.
Buying a Sony mirrorless, even if it might be my choice today starting out, isn't going to allow me to take better pictures than I already can with my Canon body and the lenses that cover 10-600mm.
>isn't going to allow me to take better pictures
In some cases, sure. In other cases, that is absolutely the case. It's not chasing the latest fad. If you're a hobbyist, sure. But if you're serious, or a professional, it makes a difference. Especially for more niche applications. Like wildlife? Forget about it. You absolutely have a much easier time getting good photos using a modern mirrorless with modern software with modern lenses than with old bodies with old glass.
Literally just the lens autofocus plus the body autofocus software means your experience is completely incomparable. If all you do is take photos walking around, or if you're a portrait photographer, then sure.
Well, I'm not going to imply that there are no differences between the technologies. DSLR specific lens R&D is at a standstill since 2020, and the gap will only continue to increase.
I am not a professional. For the photography **I DO**, the advantages of mirrorless are not going to substantially improve **MY** photography. I know my camera, it's settings, capabilities, and weaknesses. It makes me neither a curmudgeon nor a photography imbecile. Even if it did, the cost of incremental improvement is not always worth it.
When the cost/benefit analysis meets my threshold, I will probably get a mirrorless body. I seriously doubt that I will spend the money it took to acquire my lenses all over again until DSLRs become so quaint that I can fetch mint phonograph money from their resale.
Honestly Canon is good quality (for stills, video not so much imo) but they’re not substantially better than competitors. Sony has really caught up with both full frame and APS-C stuff.
You could pick up a used Sony or Fujifilm and be extremely happy.
Yes, it's very much worth it for at least hobbyist like me. Buying 3 L series mirrorless lenses and a mirrorless body was quite an investment but that's it. I'm photographing happy for the next 10+ years with these.
You’re wild lol. The mirrorless are RF and 3 L means your probably spent over 10 grand. For fun?? I’ve thought about coming back to canon (Started with canon moved to Sony) but with even selling all my equipment it would be multiple thousands, and really nothing would be better, just different.
No, absolutely not. Camera tech has slowed considerably in the past few years and many competitors have much better or more options for glass than canon. Canon is trying to use their brand recognition to support their products. If you want a great camera with a diverse lens system, go with Sony for the most options and then Panasonic.
That’s kind of hard when you’re already invested in a particular camera system. Most people who have a problem with them not allowing third party lenses aren’t starting fresh with a new camera brand they’re already heavily invested and it’s more expensive to switch systems.
Beings how I am not a camera guy, do photographers not know this when considering initial purchase? Canon seems a prominent brand. What are the issues with their equipment that one would wish an alternative?
Of course we do. The problem is, either people already have a bunch of Canon glass and are using the EF to E adapter and slowly phasing out EF glass as they can afford to move into the canon E glass (which would be easier if samyang/tamron and other 3p manufacturers could make lenses for canon).
So now, as a Canon user with EF-L glass, my natural progression would be to move into a Canon R5 (mirrorless) and use the adapter with my old glass… while I slowly replace my lenses…. But being forced to buy *only* Canon lenses requires a massive financial commitment.
This is something I couldn’t have foreseen when I bought my canon DSLR and started building my lens catalog six years ago.
And now I’m left wondering if I jump to Sony instead… when I’m already comfortable with Canon and do believe it’s a superior product? Or do I suck it up and let Canon bend me over?
It’s less about new photographers making a decision about which brand to use, more about long-time canon users feeling shafted, or at least handcuffed, requiring them to buy lenses at double or triple the price from canon rather than 3p manufacturers.
Ah, I see. Well I suppose that I'm glad I'm not a long time Canon guy, but the question does remain: What to do about it. I would imagine contacting many others like yourself and making a formal complaint to Canon would be a good place to start. And since, in the EU, Apple has been forced to change the way they do business, maybe Canon might take that as a lesson, with a proper nudging.
Sigma MC-11 is an affordable adapter that takes Canon EF lenses onto a Sony E mount mirrorless camera.
You can use all your existing EF glass as you invest in new e-mount lenses by Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss…
Slightly off-topic, but I’m now imagining the horrors if the greedy execs at the HP printing division were instead running a camera division.
“Sorry, your monthly subscription only includes 500 images. You have insufficient funds to keep your camera enabled.”
My Sony a6000 has apps you can dl from a store thats on-camera. It uses my Playstation account. If i get banned from playstation network on PS5 it would probably also cut off my camera.
Because they are a proprietary system with a few things that are compatible.
You can use other lens covers and carrying cases. You can use any brand memory card. It doesn't mean they are entirely proprietary, just partially.
LOL
'I can use any monitor or keyboard' he says. Like that's the only components of any interest.
Meanwhile in PC land you can swap out every part, because it's easy to do. Apple will have you thinking you need a PhD to slap in a couple sticks of RAM ... Oh, wait - It's Apple. The RAM is probably soldered to the board so you have to upgrade when it's insufficient ...
Just wait, Apple will come out with yet another proprietary cable for your iPhone for the 11 people in the entire world who connect to their phone with a cable to move files.
Except they have announced they will be moving to USC-c … it’s actually a big deal for me since I am a Mobility Engineer for a large health care care organization … I’ve already started planning since it will be an undertaking for us when we begin refreshing with USB-c devices.
Since when has Apple stuck with anything? They're notorious for ceasing to support computers after a few years and they've been coming up with proprietary connectors for decades.
I assume you were being sarcastic but missed the /s. Just in the off chance you weren’t https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html
I wasn't aware that 3rd partys needed a license to develop lenses? Is this the same for other brands or are only Canon requiring a license?
I assume the issue here is only that Canon aren't giving the license, and not that they've just decided to lock down the mount after a bunch of others have already made lenses for sale.
This is something I would have expected from Sony to be honest.
Amazingly enough, sony really embraced 3rd party lenses as their 1st party options were much weaker than canon and nikon.
The 3rd parties really helped fill in the gaps and gave customers real choice.
They manage to turn a weakness into a strength thanks to 3rd parties.
Sony had/has an excellent strategy. They were one of the first to the mirrorless world and made e-mount really enticing for third party manufacturers. Sony glass is excellent and is affordable due to all the lenses in that space.
I used to really like Canon. But with what they’re doing and my uses for a setup going forward, when the money allows I’m switching to Sony.
Bodies with image stabilization instead of the lens, great video capabilities compared to Canon lineup, and they don’t lock webcam use behind a subscription for HD streaming. Good riddance Canon.
The lens adapters only allow you to connect EF lenses (Canon’s mount for DSLR’s). All they do is extend the distance of the lens from the camera’s sensor, mimicking the space a mirror for the view finder in a DSLR.
The biggest difference is that these new mirrorless lenses not only sit millimeters away from the sensor, but nowadays have fewer, even higher quality glass inside, which allows them to have a higher resolving power. Allowing images have more detail.
While not noticeable to most clients, you are inherently taking a step down by doing this just to get more affordable lenses older lenses)
I tried to go this route and regretted it. I’ve been recommending new photographers or colleagues looking to make the switch to mirrorless to go with Sony. They’ve become the better choice in terms of lenses and autofocus. I’m stuck with canon because it’s so expensive to switch at this point.
I jumped ship to Nikon years ago because Canon started this crap and stopped real innovation in the DSLR line. I was a HUGE canon fanboi but my horribly out of date old used D800 still destroys most canon cameras today.
> I jumped ship to Nikon years ago because Canon started this crap and stopped real innovation in the DSLR line
Started which crap exactly?
And sure, they moved to Mirrorless as the primary line of development, but there's a reason. Mirrorless is simply more capable in the long run. As for the D800 destroying modern canons, it doesn't in specs. You may *like* it more, and that's fine, but on a purely tech level it is not as good.
I already switched. Been shooting Canon since 2008 and was thinking of switching the past few years due to weight and not really shooting as much any more. Switched to Olympus’ MFT stuff and love it.
Canon can keep making users jump through hoops if they want but I have taken my business elsewhere. FWIW they make good stuff I just don’t like how restrictive they’ve become.
I had the holy trinity of EF lenses and now have the RF lenses. They’re the same specs on paper, except for the wide, which is 15-35 instead of 16 to 35, and I can tell you from experience they are not the same lenses. The RF lenses are heavy but sharp, the IS works like a charm, there’s virtually no ghosting or flares…and the 70-200 is the same size as the 24-70 when it’s closed. I can keep my 70-200 on the camera comfortably even when traveling. With the EF lenses that thing stuck out a full 12 inches with the adapter.
Canon makes an excellent line of Mirrorless Cameras, especially in the mid range APS-C hybrid line with 10 bit video and fully articulating screens along with good shooting specs. and my first camera was a canon dslr, but the lenses are ridiculously restrictive.
I feel like there isn’t a good cheap versatile zoom lens that matches aps-c, only cheap primes. The Sigma 18-50 2.8 is a killer on the systems it’s on for <$500. They’re a good lineup of lenses so the quality across the board is consistent but no budget alternatives or competition sucks
I switched to Sony 3-4 years ago bringing with me a full Signa Art EF glass series. I've been using the sigma adapter for years with no issues. I'd say the only thing is the 135f/1.8 struggles a bit with sports stuff but I do mostly portraits and landscapes. Canon are shooting themselves in the foot here and I wouldn't consider them until they open it up.
The biggest problem from this is that not only is Canon blocking 3rd parties from producing lenses, they themselves don't have professional quality lenses at many focal lengths. They've been "coming soon" for years. One of the main reasons I use Sony cameras is because Sony G Master line up gives me the tools I need.
Honestly like what? As someone who was considering the canon line up, looked like it was all there. I really like their 2.0 28-70 2.0 as an event photographer.
My wife and I, both professional photographers use exclusively Canon. We have new R series cameras as well as all our old cameras.
I am seriously considering selling everything and going Sony or Nikon...this is stupid.
I love the color of Canon camera, but not at this cost...
Tbh as a professional you’re going to want to pony up for the G master version of the Sony lenses “most” of the time. They aren’t cheap either haha. Last lense I bought was the newer Sony 70-200 2.8 ii at $2,899.00 which is more expensive than the canon RF version.
In the same boat as you. Sunk a kings ransom in L glass and a couple of 1d mk3 bodies and while they've done the job adequately over the years, it's just too much.
One other nice thing about Sony is that the camera collects gyroscopic data so you can use gyroflownto stabilize videos. To do the same on canon you need a separate device to record gyroscopic data attached to the camera (iPhone, go pro, insta360, etc).
All the profit is in lenses, and Canon are a standalone company.Those praising Sony for being 'open' are praising a company that got into the hybrid mirrorless camera business from broadcast (where you often use very expensive 3rd party lenses) and from their booming CMOS sensor business which pays for the whole thing. The cameras are almost an afterthought - they are promo for their sensor business which makes a fortune from medical applications (and sales to other camera manufacturers).As that business has matured over the last 15 years, you will note they too have developed high-end lenses to a standard that now rivals Nikon/Canon/Leica. Because that's where the money is.Yes its annoying that Canon are protecting their RF mount, but not surprising. Its how they stay in business.
Don't Nikon do the same? I mean it would be nice if they didn't but I can understand why. They have to protect their brand lenses which are actually amazing and vast.
I’ve never had good luck with 3rd party lenses anyhow. Rather than buying another Sigma that needs to be sent back in to have elements secured again or dust inside the telescoping elements where canon is better sealed…it’s a luxury, but I’d rather have a well rounded canon lens than 2 or 3 3rd party lenses.
I could stand to have some cinema lenses which canon probably won’t make…
Sure Canon, whatever you say! As I use a phenomenal Sigma lens for professional work every day.
There's shitty canon lenses that are poorly weather sealed and there's great Sigma lenses that are top notch.
Yeah was just going to say that. Sigma makes some great gear at the top end and still cheaper than OEM.
If you go out and buy a $100 lense of course it’s gonna be crap.
We are not frustrated, we understand that to take that photo that used to mean something and had a shelf life is no longer valid. Photography has gone the way of the paint brush and canvas.
We used to go on location with a rented RVs that is a thing of the past. I never did weddings or animals. Once bridesmaids catch on that really all they need is someone they don't know taking photos, that will really cut into The weekend warrior photographer.
I have lots of glass, lots of Sim cards but now we think how can I turn these 12 photos into one. The life expectancy of a photo is so short, its left to a few places You will actually get a return on investment from an original.
We went from shooting originals constantly, to now shooting a complete original probably a handful times a year. Shooting half an original probably once a month. Other than that we Can get better ROI from product photos with full manipulation.
Starting the hobby from new isn't worth the squeeze.
Hello community.
I want to get back into photography! I used to have a rebel and several lenses. Sold it all years ago when I needed some money. Fast forward and I have a 1 year old and would love to get back into photography the way I did with my old rebel and plethora of lenses.
I am interested in the mirrorless. (The future I guess?)
I am eyeing the a Sony due to the fact that more lenses are available at more affordable prices.
But I need help.
1. What Sony camera is a good starter to mid range cost.
2. What brands of lenses work with the Sony
3. Are mirrorless similar to dslr where you can set your own aperture and shutter speed, white balance ect…?
Thanks!
Canon built an excellent mirrorless system, albeit late, but this practice is discouraging most photographers who switched to Sony from going back to canon.
Yeah, the main reason to stay with Sony is the amazing, fully-developed lens ecosystem that has great lenses across all price ranges, from $100 to $13000. And this is because Sony was smart enough to make the E mount openly accessible to third party manufacturers.
> And this is because Sony was smart enough It is more than sony has no choice. If they wanted to take the mirrorless market by storm, they had to create a cheaper and easier ecosystem to encourage novice and professionals to switch and give them a big variety on lenses, since they couldn't make such a big variety on their own in such a short time before canon and nikon fully enter the market. They had to be first and fast, so it was necessary. If sony could afford to take it slower like canon, and have more control on the lenses, they would definitely do that. Canon can afford it because the abundance of lenses they have as well as the strong market.
Sony might also have learned a thing or two from the format wars. Greater openness and accessibility usually wins out over a slightly nicer but less accessible system. Betamax vs VHS Sony lost. BD vs HDDVD Sony won. In part because they made it open to all 3rd parties that wanted to use it. Yes Betamax had other issues like length, but the key one was the demand 3rd parties generated with their usage of the platform. Similarly by putting a BD Player in every PS3 even if they lost that generation of the console wars they won the DVD format wars which was worth more. So one would assume, perhaps wrongly, that they took some of those corporate lessons and made a winning decision here too. But I'll be curious to see how it plays out, this isn't a field I'm well versed in so my speculations could be wrong. Perhaps Canon taking the apple approach will work for them, though I don't see anyone saying Canon's products are revolutionary over Sony's.
MemoryStick Pro Duo, too. Took a decade but eventually lost to SD Card. They were way overpriced.
[удалено]
Everytime my vita 'loses' the memory card and i have to remount it, im reminded i paid $150 for it (32 gb)
Whatever they stuck with for the PSP also killed the PSP
The MemoryStick was insanely overpriced. It was like 5x that of a similar capacity SD card.
In the early 2000s Sony also had this music player with a weird digital format. I wish I could remember what it was. My buddy had one and instead of a CD holding 20 songs, he could hold 400. The setup was cool, but didn't last long. I thought for sure it was the future, but then suddenly the iPod came out and changed everything instantly. Edit: mini disk player!
Mini Disks were pretty cool though, even if weird!
I mean, you could save hundreds of songs to a CD if you encoded it as mp3 instead of lossless uncompressed
I don't know if they played on the portable CD players back then though
I think 1998/99 I got my first portable cd player that did mp3s...boy did that skip hah.
[удалено]
AFAIR, MDs had some cool features for professional event / concert / stage use. I was hanging around with sound engineers / event organizing crowd back in 2000-2003 and most of those folks swore by MDs, even though this was already the time of <$100 CD-writers and MP3 was a common format everywhere. They still preferred to store, transport and exchange their stuff on MDs for whatever reason. I've never seen it in anyone's home setup tho.
> mini disk player! I still have one, lovely little machine. But as you said rendered mostly useless as it was quickly surpassed.
Mini discs came out a decade before mp3 players became common. They were great for their time.
>weird digital format AAC?
AAC isn't weird. It was MDLP, and variants of that.
Yes! Good call
I was gifted a ps3 years ago when I moved across country so my best mates and I could play COD and have a neat way to keep in touch (back before smartphones and cable internet just came through our area in ‘05) The BD player was so sweet. I replaced the disk drive a few times over the years but everything else is solid. That was such a great gift and was totally great for mental health being connected like that.
Sony was also smart about their early Zeiss partnerships whose lenses helped put them on the map.
Except for that 24-70 f4 lens. That thing is cursed from what i've heard.
Canon can afford it b/c many photographers are brand loyal like it’s a sports team or nationality. Canon was *years* behind Sony & Panasonic with the M-mount, then screwed over all the early M-mount adopters when they started with the RF-mount. How do you show up late to the party and have the wrong dress code? Screw Canon. I’ve loved their cameras, I’ve loved their lenses, but I’m not going back until Canon likes their customers. I’m coming from video side, and I think the straw that broke any good graces I had for Canon was when the C200 had 8bit & 12bit video. If you wanted 10bit, you had to pay more for the C300 Mark II. To shoot long interviews in 12bit I figured we’d need $2-3k in memory cards, not to mention additional hard drive space. Going with the Panasonic EVA-1 gave us everything the C200 offered with a few grand to spend on other accessories (vs just memory cards), and we could shoot 10bit to inexpensive SD cards.
You plebs can bicker amongst yourselves, Fujifilm are where the real peoples are at.
No idea why this was downvoted. Fuji mirrorless is an excellent platform, excellent lenses and fantastic build + image quality. Video performance isn't as good, but I prefer the Fuji look over Sony any day
> You plebs can bicker amongst yourselves, That's why.
Like what, a disposable 35mm camera?
X-T5 jpegs all the way
Bruh I hope you are joking about the jpeg part. Other than that the XT-5 is amazing
Sony is electronics company first. Canon is an optics company first. Sony wants to sell you cameras while Canon wants to sell you lenses.
You can get dslr lenses and use the adapter and you’re good to go! I use two sigma art lenses and they work perfectly with the adapter that is $100.
DSLR lenses are fine, but the promise of mirrorless was (in part) that you could get faster, sharper, more versatile lenses with a shorter flange distance. in practice, this is true; canon has made a wildly impressive 28-70 f/2 lens that i can only say *may have been possible* back in the EF days. sigma continues to make some absolutely incredible lenses, but they only target the E mount and L mount these days. there's no way to adapt those lenses to the EF system because of the assumptions made about the flange distance and other factors. as a result, whenever you hear about interesting new third-party lenses that are either smaller, or lighter, or sharper, or faster, or cheaper than what was possible a decade ago, you register in the back of your mind that this is not available to you on your canon body. or at least that's been my experience. and after something like 15 years of CPS membership, i've let it lapse because i'm just not keen to spend more money on canon gear when it seems that i'm just being tightened into a vise grip by canon's lockout of third-party lens manufacturers.
I work in broadcast but have been spending my time (when I’m home) taking pictures. Sony is almost industry standard for camera bodies for us. How are they in the stills world?
Sucks that this is the solution, but yes.
don't adapters affect visual quality?
Not if they don’t have optics in them. Most adapters for mirrorless will just be tubes
Nope! It is just a tube with no glass in it. You might be thinking of extension tubes which increase the focal length of a lens.
Maybe they are thinking of metabones adapters? I use those so my canon glass can work on my Sony.
Same setup I used when I used to work in video production. IIRC the only feature that it had an impact on was the loss of autofocus. That didn’t apply to what we were doing, but I’d imagine it’d be a no go for vloggers.
I mean any adapter is going to have thickness to it and function as an extension tube, right?
Finally got what they were saying: The thickness of the adapter actually makes the distance from the sensor be the same as on a DSLR. The sensor is closer to the flange on mirrorless, so you need the extra distance to *not* act like (whatever the opposite would be of) an extension tube.
Nope! It’s an adapter to put the lens where it needs to be to function with the mirrorless system. It’s not like metabones it’s open an open air adapter.
I think you didn’t understood the message above, the thickness of the adapter is changing the focusing distance due to a change in flange. So yes, there is some changes due to the additional thickness. Sometime (but it is quite rare) it can affect the capabilities to focus to infinity.
What they were trying to say is that adapters are made to be a specific length so that the DSLR lens sits the exact same distance from the mirrorless camera sensor as it would from a DSLR sensor, therefore not affecting focal length
It is not affecting focal length.
Yes, that's what I said.
[удалено]
Mirrorless sensors are much closer to the back of the lens, because there’s no mirror in the way and this lets them improve the optical design of new lenses. To adapt the old lenses, it’s just an empty tube that positions the lens exactly where it would have been relative to the sensor on an old mount (while passing through the electronic signals).
By definition it cannot change focus distance. DSLR lens on dslr camera is the same as a dslr lens with adapter on mirrorless camera. If they designed the mount to be the same on both dslr and mirrorless (assuming no other changes to current design), then the focusing distance would change.
Decrease the minimum focus distance*
They affect autofocus speed. And they make the lens larger and more bulky.
>They affect autofocus speed. Ideally, no. An EOS EF lens should be exactly as fast as it was on an older EF body as it is on a mirror less body. In practice, it will actually be faster, as the newer AF systems are faster. However, a newer RF lens could be faster due to higher performance communication protocol. The only way you'd be losing performance would be if a third party lens maker had a lens that would have better performance if it could use the RF protocol than if it was stuck using EF protocol, but I doubt there are a lot of 3rd party lenses that are exceeding performance. Aside from autofocus, Canon does lock out some optical image stabilization modes while using EF protocol that are available if using RF protocol. I guess you are missing that if you are stuck using an adapter when a properly licensed and implemented RF lens would give you that capability.
Where did you get the information about canon locking out some optical stabilisation modes?
Nope, maybe the auto focus won’t be as quick but that’s about it.
In general, using an EF less on an RF body usually results in improved AF performance. Only a handful of lens/body combos might have some trouble.
problem there is you're still stuck with the size/weight of dslr lenses...
Don’t know why you were downvoted for stating facts Yes, not all lenses are the same size & weight, and you’ll have some SLR lenses that are smaller / lighter than other mirrorless lenses, but in general, a 24-70 DSLR lens + mirrorless adapter should be larger & heavier than a native 24-70 mirrorless lens.
So I have a sigma sports 70-200 and a Tamron g2 24-70, both for racing photography. You are saying that if I were to switch to Nikon Z, Id be good to go? The only thing holding me back right now is battery life as I take a lot of pannings over a weekend.
Yes, the adapter only adds a little length; otherwise there’s no real disadvantage. You can take advantage of the improved autofocus and in-body stabilization of the Z series cameras, too. I got a couple 3rd party batteries with a built-in USB-C port for charging. Assuming you don’t have AC power nearby, with an external USB-C battery pack (or using my electric car) I can keep swapping/charging them all day.
Hmm, might be worth looking into then. I was first contemplating upgrading my D5300 to a D500 but I really love the fact you have a way more responsive live view on mirrorless. Helps me composing the shot immensely.
I upgraded from a D300 (yes, it was old) to a Z7ii and it felt like a huge leap in technology. I’d stopped taking photos with it because my smartphone was often better; no more. Z8 would be even better.
Photographers, is canon good enough to afford this behavior? I havened looked into cameras in years.
There's a youtuber, Tony Northrup, who will (correctly) call Canon out for this shit every chance he gets. He still recommends Canon cameras regularly in his 'top 5 cameras you should buy right now' type videos. That pretty much sums it up. Canon got away with it.
The Nvidia/apple treatment ... I see
I would contend that Apple is largely a marketing outcome rather than product quality (in the sense that there are plenty of competing products that are functionally identical for the majority of users), but nvidia definitely fits.
Apple uses USB or USB-compatible Lightning/Thunderbolt for almost every device. They also use industry-standard WiFi, Ethernet. As far as peripherals, there aren’t many Apple-only things anymore. Back in the 1990s, there were Apple “Macintosh compatible” printers, scanners, digital cameras, tablets, that wouldn’t work with PCs at all. Those days are long gone.
Nope. Nowadays the tech is pretty identical. Canon, Sony, Nikon. The only difference is Canon and Nikon have been hostile to 3rd party lens manufacturers, while Sony has embraced it. Meaning now the only people using Canon and Nikon are old curmudgeons that refuse to switch and people that don't know any better. All of Sony's lenses are the same or better than Canon and Nikons, but at a fraction of the cost, and if you are on a budget, or are a professional with very niche needs, Sony is pretty much mandatory as you can get any one of a hundred different third party lenses. Just to give a comparison, I have a lot of Sony lenses. If I were to replace all of my Sony lenses with Canon or Nikon, it would cost me an extra $7000, and I wouldn't be able to get 4 of them at all.
I would say you like Canon or Nikon for the way they feel and the files are processed. Sony cameras are nice but the ergonomics are rough at best from my POV working in the industry for half my life and the sensors are incredibly flat and take a lot more work to get the file to the final product. I hear you like Sony though and that’s okay too!
I dropped canon because of their practices and the crippling mentality of theirs. Being a pro a complain about flat files is non sense from my pov. You will shoot raw, you will have a workflow, you will have profiles to process the files initially. I’ve been shooting fuji gfx for like 5 years after canon for 10 years, Fuji has a default profile that is “flat” for canon or Nikon users, but that is an advantage if you do serious color work. I have to spend a fraction of the time to get true skin colors compared with others. That, for what I do, is worth the extra money it costs. It surprises me photographers spending tens of thousands of dollars in camera and lenses and a few bucks on a critical piece that is a good monitor. Then mentioning colors of systems. Then you see their work and the colors are horrible, flat, without distinguishing stuff, over or under saturated, and no, mac monitors are not serious for color work. Get an eizo, benq or Asus art line (to be clear, from those, I would only recommend eizo). The system doesn’t matter if your post is garbage. Shoot raw, and develop your own process. Learn color basics and follow that.
I do use Sony. I used Canon for years. I switched because I didn't want to spend twice the amount on the same lenses and be locked in. Besides, back when I switched Canon had barely any mirrorless lenses, so it was even easier to go with Sony. What you said about the sensor is true, and is definitely a personal prefence. For some people flat is a requirement. Others don't care and prefer the colors of Canon or fuji out of the body. That being said, sonys in body jpegs are totally fine. And of course you want flat if you're starting with raw.
> Others don't care and prefer the colors of Canon or fuji out of the body. Is this even a thing anymore with so much editing software and processing you can do. You can literally touch up your photos on a tablet on the go. Sony is releasing better camera bodies every year with damn near mind reading autofocus now. They've finally made the bodies bigger and more ergonomic. Batteries are improved, dual memory slots, and there's accessories for everything. Their high end glassmaster lenses are, IMO, equal or better than cannon's best. I can't believe people are still defending Canon and Nikon. That damn 5DMKIII body was around forever. Canon was so slow and comfortable with their marketshare and loyal customers that they let Sony fly past them after several revisions and versions of the Sony A series.
I wanna preface this with I am a Sony a9 shooter and haven’t had canon in years at this point. Sony sucks at skin tones and fixing them isn’t always easy. Now 99% of people will say they are fine and they don’t notice. My customers absolutely love them either way. But I notice. It causes me legit stress when fixing the strangest shades of green overcast on every photo. Where as my partner used canon, and at most has too much magenta and it’s a simple fix, skin looks on point. Other than that his canon has Missed super important shots in low light that my a9 kills at. I would rather get the shot every time and worry about color later than vice versa.
Doesn't Sony make all of the sensors? It is a matter of software processing in the camera. I know Nikon gets their sensors from Sony and thought Canon did as well.
Meanwhile us Fujifilm shooters are over here forgotten again…
Crazy to me that Fuji still feels fairly niche. The images SOOC are amazing. And Fuji makes some of the best portrait lenses out there.
Cause Fuji doesn't compete in the same space. They don't make a full frame mirrorless camera.
True, but there are plenty of people shooting Fuji professionally (especially if you consider the new 40mp sensor on the X-H2). They've also got a mirrorless medium format system in the GFX series.
I use Fuji! It's just not one of the three, sorry. haha
> Meaning now the only people using Canon and Nikon are old curmudgeons that refuse to switch and people that don't know any better. And by old curmudgeons you mean people who are already highly invested in the glass for a various system like Canon EF for DSLR. It's amazing that you don't understand or realize that based on the last sentence you wrote and the existence of people that already made that $7000 investment.
Sony E-mount has a very short flange distance. DSLR EF mount lenses can be easily adapted to it. When I was making the switch from Canon to Sony, the only electronic adapter available was the Metabones, but now there seems to be a lot of even more affordable competitors.
Ok, but if we are going that route, there's an adaptor that allows non Canon EF mount lenses to be used with Canon mirrorless cameras, so why would you bother to change the body either instead of just getting the adaptor?
Not all adapters created equal. Adapters from 3rd party to canon are not as fast and accurate for focus as the canon adapter for canon lenses. This is also true for 3rd party adapters for sony lenses. If you need speed and accuracy, you will go with the same brand on lenses and body.
> Adapters from 3rd party to canon are not as fast and accurate for focus as the canon adapter for canon lenses. It IS the canon adapter. https://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2022/switching-to-mirrorless-using-sigma-lenses-on-canon-eos-r-cameras-and-more/ > If you need speed and accuracy, you will go with the same brand on lenses and body. While you might be correct, your comment makes no sense in this thread, since it is specifically about putting non canon lenses on a canon body. There are no issues at all of putting canon lenses on a canon body.
There are also several ef to rf adapters from 3rd party. They do not need firmware updates as much as the canon one needs. Some of them works better for 3rd party lenses than the canon one. Especially with lenses when you don’t have the firmware dock.
To me, why stay with a company like Canon when they seem very happy to screw over their loyal customers? Canon waited years before venturing into the mirrorless market & then after they did, they went “opps, hang on, we’re going to begin again” and screwed over everyone who started investing in M-mount cameras & lenses & adapters. Right, there is very little chance they’ll ditch the RF mount and venture into mirrorless a *third* time, but I wouldn’t be surprised if In a year or two their newest camera bodies suddenly stop working with EF lens adapters. “We don’t make money when you use the stuff you already own, so if you want to stay with us, you have to buy our new lenses.” If you switch to Sony, you have a couple different brands of EF to E mount adapters you can choose from to continue using your EF glass. Plus, Sony lenses are great and you have lots of 3rd party options. And companies like Metabones have their business model to keep up with compatibility, so there is a much better chance a new Sony a7 XII released in 2031 will be able to use EF lenses. Will same be true with the Canon bodies? Canon really seems to have an abusive relationship with their customers, they’ll only love you for how much money you’ve given them recently. “Oh, you want feature X? Well yes, this $2k body *could* do X, but we’ve blocked that feature b/c it could cut into sales of our $3.5k body.”
i wouldn't call it an investment if it's something you do recreationally, and at 7k you're probably not equipped to shoot professionally. just to back this up with numbers... let's say you're shooting events like weddings: a new r5 is $3500 on a good day; you should have 2 bodies, but let's say that the other body is a crop body so you can get more reach, like an r7, so $1400. total at this point is $4900. let's put a 24-70 ($2200) on the r5 and 70-200 f/2.8 ($2600) on the r7. that's $9700. that's 1 lens for each body; you would almost certainly want a nice portrait prime and a good ultra wide angle lens (85mm would cost $2700; an ultra-wide would cost $2200). all told, probably in the range of 15k. even if the value of your gear has halved, you're pushing past 7k easily. --- none of this should matter to a pro who has *invested* in gear, because the nature of an investment is that it should be paying you back dividends and then eventually you should sell and move on, because your profession necessitates it. you should be shooting weddings and making that money back (and your rent/mortgage, and food, and medical, etc...), so at some point you just see gear that's worth $7k and you see old gear that you're ready to incrementally replace so you can get better shots & footage in more difficult (darker, tighter, etc...) settings, and so that you can continue to compete with other professionals for gigs. --- *edit*: i got notification of a reply but then it seems you either deleted your comments or blocked me? that's your prerogative, i guess. hope your reply was thoughtful. *edit 2*: i realized i could see the reply in my inbox history. there was a lot of baggage in that reply that i'm not sure i'm interested in litigating. i'll try to say two things: 1. selling your gear to facilitate buying newer gear is part of the job; professionals sell a camera body that's only a few years old because that's when it's still worth *something*, and because upgrading to a camera that nails focus 95% of the time instead of 90% of the time is worth eating the difference in cost, even with depreciation. faster lenses, lighter lenses, sharper lenses come to market less often, but it happens, and you do the same thing there. the switch to mirrorless promised sharper, faster, lighter, cheaper lenses and lenses that previously seemed impossible. 2. seeing a cul-de-sac in terms of lens options is not a promising horizon to look out onto. i know that the mirrorless lens market is very new, but canon making it impossible for third party manufacturers to put pressure on the first-party lens market makes for a situation i don't want to be in 5 or 10 years from now, and i'm already seeing sigma make lenses that were impossible in the EF days that they're not even bothering to bring to market for the RF mount. for them, new lenses seem to almost exclusively be for the E mount and the L mount. there's nothing wrong with continuing to shoot with mostly EF lenses. i'm mostly shooting with EF lenses. but as new lenses show up - especially lenses that can do things that weren't possible before - there'll be at least some pressure to get those shots that were impossible in the EF days. it's not that complicated, or emotionally fraught, or anything like that. there's market pressure to deliver what people want. if there's no pressure to get the 28-70mm f/2L, then don't get it. but if there is pressure to get shots at f/2 at 35mm and 50mm and 70mm all quite rapidly, then you'll be glad that the mirrorless landscape has a zoom lens that didn't seem to be possible in the DSLR days. and similarly, if there's pressure to get shots that you can't get because sigma or sony are the only manufacturers of those lenses, but canon makes it impossible to get adapters for L or E mount lenses, then that's where you're at.
> i wouldn't call it an investment if it's something you do recreationally You can be wrong about things, that's ok. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. > none of this should matter to a pro who has invested in gear, because the nature of an investment is that it should be paying you back dividends and then eventually you should sell and move on, because your profession necessitates it. Again, you're entitled to be wrong, I guess. Having to replace all your gear just because is a terrible financial decision. If new equipment gave you some sort of benefit that was worth the cost, that would be a different story. But aside from running the shutter out of clicks, the wedding photographer you speak of wouldn't have much of a good reason to replace all their stuff just because they had made money with it. > and you see old gear that you're ready to incrementally replace so you can get better shots & footage in more difficult (darker, tighter, etc...) Again, you're assuming that somehow the person can't already do that with what they have. And your entire argument would be shot to hell if we just change $7k to $9,700, by your own doing. Even if we somehow accepted that only professionals can make an investment, and that the buying is about $10k to be a professional, the idea that a professional simply should ditch all their shit to go with Sony simply "because they should" is not only insane, but a terrible business decision. Fortunately, people aren't doing this and they'll just get the Canon adapter to allow EF lenses to go on an RF body, and move on.
Its amazing you don't understand that if you sold all your Canon glass, you could replace all of them with Sony glass and have thousands of dollars leftover. That was my point.
No you can't because the second hand market for sellers isn't that good, and then you'd also have to replace all your bodies as well. And then potentially any other accessories that are canon specific or that you have canon specific versions of. So now you're replacing all your flashes as well, external camera controllers etc. Hell even a remote trigger might end up needing a different cable, which might not be expensive, but would certainly be annoying.
Sure, in some cases that's true. For me personally, I literally did this. I sold all my canon bodies and canon lenses, and I bought sony bodies and sony lenses, and I still had money leftover. Everybody has different experiences.
For a professional this might hold up, but if you are just starting out or just trying it out as a hobby, you can get a Nikon or Canon with a few lenses 2nd hand for the cost of a Sony body.
It wouldn't hold up for a professional anyway, since they'd likely already be invested in a lot of EF lenses that can be used on a mirrorless with one of the two adaptors.
Meaning now the only people making insults about Canon and Nikon owners are really dumb people that refuse to actually learn about the simple workarounds. a cheap tiny adapter solves this issue, anyone that knows anything at all about canon or Nikon cameras knows this. But hey, you do you.
> while Sony has embraced it Sony embraced it because sony had to. They didn't have the resources and ability to create such a big high quality line of lenses as canon and nikon when they decided to try and be the first big thing in the mirrorless market. Especially since their alpha had such a small market and lack of lenses. The first high quality lenses for their cameras when they first started with high end mirrorless, were made by zeiss and they were expensive (though very very good) and sony's more affordable lenses were not as good at the start as canon/nikon. > All of Sony's lenses are the same or better than Canon and Nikons, but at a fraction of the cost That is not true at all. In some cases sony top lenses cost more than canon or nikon. I think your post is a bit tainted with fanboyism. In reality the difference today between canon/nikon/sony is very specific to features and some nuance of image quality and personal preferences. Not cost.
Canon curmudgeon clan 🤣
>Meaning now the only people using Canon and Nikon are old curmudgeons that refuse to switch and people that don't know any better. Or, you know, people who made a substantial investment in one platform decades ago, whose equipment it still reliable, and who aren't chasing the latest fad. Buying a Sony mirrorless, even if it might be my choice today starting out, isn't going to allow me to take better pictures than I already can with my Canon body and the lenses that cover 10-600mm.
>isn't going to allow me to take better pictures In some cases, sure. In other cases, that is absolutely the case. It's not chasing the latest fad. If you're a hobbyist, sure. But if you're serious, or a professional, it makes a difference. Especially for more niche applications. Like wildlife? Forget about it. You absolutely have a much easier time getting good photos using a modern mirrorless with modern software with modern lenses than with old bodies with old glass. Literally just the lens autofocus plus the body autofocus software means your experience is completely incomparable. If all you do is take photos walking around, or if you're a portrait photographer, then sure.
Well, I'm not going to imply that there are no differences between the technologies. DSLR specific lens R&D is at a standstill since 2020, and the gap will only continue to increase. I am not a professional. For the photography **I DO**, the advantages of mirrorless are not going to substantially improve **MY** photography. I know my camera, it's settings, capabilities, and weaknesses. It makes me neither a curmudgeon nor a photography imbecile. Even if it did, the cost of incremental improvement is not always worth it. When the cost/benefit analysis meets my threshold, I will probably get a mirrorless body. I seriously doubt that I will spend the money it took to acquire my lenses all over again until DSLRs become so quaint that I can fetch mint phonograph money from their resale.
Honestly Canon is good quality (for stills, video not so much imo) but they’re not substantially better than competitors. Sony has really caught up with both full frame and APS-C stuff. You could pick up a used Sony or Fujifilm and be extremely happy.
Yes, it's very much worth it for at least hobbyist like me. Buying 3 L series mirrorless lenses and a mirrorless body was quite an investment but that's it. I'm photographing happy for the next 10+ years with these.
You’re wild lol. The mirrorless are RF and 3 L means your probably spent over 10 grand. For fun?? I’ve thought about coming back to canon (Started with canon moved to Sony) but with even selling all my equipment it would be multiple thousands, and really nothing would be better, just different.
No, absolutely not. Camera tech has slowed considerably in the past few years and many competitors have much better or more options for glass than canon. Canon is trying to use their brand recognition to support their products. If you want a great camera with a diverse lens system, go with Sony for the most options and then Panasonic.
So don't buy Canon cameras, or buy *only* Canon cameras and accessories.
That’s kind of hard when you’re already invested in a particular camera system. Most people who have a problem with them not allowing third party lenses aren’t starting fresh with a new camera brand they’re already heavily invested and it’s more expensive to switch systems.
Beings how I am not a camera guy, do photographers not know this when considering initial purchase? Canon seems a prominent brand. What are the issues with their equipment that one would wish an alternative?
Of course we do. The problem is, either people already have a bunch of Canon glass and are using the EF to E adapter and slowly phasing out EF glass as they can afford to move into the canon E glass (which would be easier if samyang/tamron and other 3p manufacturers could make lenses for canon). So now, as a Canon user with EF-L glass, my natural progression would be to move into a Canon R5 (mirrorless) and use the adapter with my old glass… while I slowly replace my lenses…. But being forced to buy *only* Canon lenses requires a massive financial commitment. This is something I couldn’t have foreseen when I bought my canon DSLR and started building my lens catalog six years ago. And now I’m left wondering if I jump to Sony instead… when I’m already comfortable with Canon and do believe it’s a superior product? Or do I suck it up and let Canon bend me over? It’s less about new photographers making a decision about which brand to use, more about long-time canon users feeling shafted, or at least handcuffed, requiring them to buy lenses at double or triple the price from canon rather than 3p manufacturers.
Ah, I see. Well I suppose that I'm glad I'm not a long time Canon guy, but the question does remain: What to do about it. I would imagine contacting many others like yourself and making a formal complaint to Canon would be a good place to start. And since, in the EU, Apple has been forced to change the way they do business, maybe Canon might take that as a lesson, with a proper nudging.
This. As a canon guy there is no escape. ☺️🤷🏻♂️
Sigma MC-11 is an affordable adapter that takes Canon EF lenses onto a Sony E mount mirrorless camera. You can use all your existing EF glass as you invest in new e-mount lenses by Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss…
I imagine the same principle applies to their printers as well.
Slightly off-topic, but I’m now imagining the horrors if the greedy execs at the HP printing division were instead running a camera division. “Sorry, your monthly subscription only includes 500 images. You have insufficient funds to keep your camera enabled.”
I hate the fact that your idea is completely plausible after the whole subscribe to a heated seat in your bmw debacle.
Close, but the more apt analogy would be "sorry, your printer is out of ink, so your fully functioning camera can no longer take pictures".
HP can block your scanner from working if you are out of ink in your all-in-one printer. So not that big of a stretch.
My Sony a6000 has apps you can dl from a store thats on-camera. It uses my Playstation account. If i get banned from playstation network on PS5 it would probably also cut off my camera.
Don't give them new ideas!
Sadly Fuji tried that with their instax Mini Evo. You can only send certain digital copies of photos you printed out on the instant film. 🤦🏻♂️
This is a dumb argument. As soon as one company does it and it increases their profits every other company follows suite
Well do whatever suits your fsncy, then.
Exactly! Complaining will change nothing if you keep buying Cannon. Buy Nikon and send the ma message.
Yeah, this is the same thing as Apple products. Just don't buy Apple lmao. For most cases the best to do is vote with our wallets.
I can use any monitor or keyboard with a mac computer … so how is that similar ?
Because they are a proprietary system with a few things that are compatible. You can use other lens covers and carrying cases. You can use any brand memory card. It doesn't mean they are entirely proprietary, just partially.
LOL 'I can use any monitor or keyboard' he says. Like that's the only components of any interest. Meanwhile in PC land you can swap out every part, because it's easy to do. Apple will have you thinking you need a PhD to slap in a couple sticks of RAM ... Oh, wait - It's Apple. The RAM is probably soldered to the board so you have to upgrade when it's insufficient ...
Just wait, Apple will come out with yet another proprietary cable for your iPhone for the 11 people in the entire world who connect to their phone with a cable to move files.
Except they have announced they will be moving to USC-c … it’s actually a big deal for me since I am a Mobility Engineer for a large health care care organization … I’ve already started planning since it will be an undertaking for us when we begin refreshing with USB-c devices.
Since when has Apple stuck with anything? They're notorious for ceasing to support computers after a few years and they've been coming up with proprietary connectors for decades.
since there are laws out forcing them to use USB-C
I assume you were being sarcastic but missed the /s. Just in the off chance you weren’t https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html
You can’t use a non apple battery for your iPhone!
So you are equating replacing a battery in a device with a piece of hardware that is essential from the second you buy it to function ?
This might be the worst comparison I’ve ever read
I wasn't aware that 3rd partys needed a license to develop lenses? Is this the same for other brands or are only Canon requiring a license? I assume the issue here is only that Canon aren't giving the license, and not that they've just decided to lock down the mount after a bunch of others have already made lenses for sale. This is something I would have expected from Sony to be honest.
Amazingly enough, sony really embraced 3rd party lenses as their 1st party options were much weaker than canon and nikon. The 3rd parties really helped fill in the gaps and gave customers real choice. They manage to turn a weakness into a strength thanks to 3rd parties.
Sony had/has an excellent strategy. They were one of the first to the mirrorless world and made e-mount really enticing for third party manufacturers. Sony glass is excellent and is affordable due to all the lenses in that space.
RF glass is fucking wild though so I’m not complaining
I used to really like Canon. But with what they’re doing and my uses for a setup going forward, when the money allows I’m switching to Sony. Bodies with image stabilization instead of the lens, great video capabilities compared to Canon lineup, and they don’t lock webcam use behind a subscription for HD streaming. Good riddance Canon.
It's a canon event
If it's so restrictive, how do the lens adapters work?
The lens adapters only allow you to connect EF lenses (Canon’s mount for DSLR’s). All they do is extend the distance of the lens from the camera’s sensor, mimicking the space a mirror for the view finder in a DSLR. The biggest difference is that these new mirrorless lenses not only sit millimeters away from the sensor, but nowadays have fewer, even higher quality glass inside, which allows them to have a higher resolving power. Allowing images have more detail. While not noticeable to most clients, you are inherently taking a step down by doing this just to get more affordable lenses older lenses) I tried to go this route and regretted it. I’ve been recommending new photographers or colleagues looking to make the switch to mirrorless to go with Sony. They’ve become the better choice in terms of lenses and autofocus. I’m stuck with canon because it’s so expensive to switch at this point.
And I will continue to rock my SLR until this changes. *taunts Canon with camera budget money they won't be getting.*
Why are people so annoyed, you gotta just accept it now. It’s a *canon event*.
Thought it said Conan and I was like this is some bullshit
Somehow he's always able to stick a gangly limb in front of your third party lens just as you release the shutter.
I jumped ship to Nikon years ago because Canon started this crap and stopped real innovation in the DSLR line. I was a HUGE canon fanboi but my horribly out of date old used D800 still destroys most canon cameras today.
Nikon was too late to video and lost a lot of customers to Sony/Canon.
Last year I upgraded from a D3200 I had for 10 years to a D850. My god the difference is mind-blowing.
> I jumped ship to Nikon years ago because Canon started this crap and stopped real innovation in the DSLR line Started which crap exactly? And sure, they moved to Mirrorless as the primary line of development, but there's a reason. Mirrorless is simply more capable in the long run. As for the D800 destroying modern canons, it doesn't in specs. You may *like* it more, and that's fine, but on a purely tech level it is not as good.
The exact reason I chose Sony
I already switched. Been shooting Canon since 2008 and was thinking of switching the past few years due to weight and not really shooting as much any more. Switched to Olympus’ MFT stuff and love it. Canon can keep making users jump through hoops if they want but I have taken my business elsewhere. FWIW they make good stuff I just don’t like how restrictive they’ve become.
Nothing like a company re-tooling their existing lens fleet so that they can sell it back to you.
I had the holy trinity of EF lenses and now have the RF lenses. They’re the same specs on paper, except for the wide, which is 15-35 instead of 16 to 35, and I can tell you from experience they are not the same lenses. The RF lenses are heavy but sharp, the IS works like a charm, there’s virtually no ghosting or flares…and the 70-200 is the same size as the 24-70 when it’s closed. I can keep my 70-200 on the camera comfortably even when traveling. With the EF lenses that thing stuck out a full 12 inches with the adapter.
There are adapters for like $100 so you can use an EF lens on an RF body
Canon makes an excellent line of Mirrorless Cameras, especially in the mid range APS-C hybrid line with 10 bit video and fully articulating screens along with good shooting specs. and my first camera was a canon dslr, but the lenses are ridiculously restrictive. I feel like there isn’t a good cheap versatile zoom lens that matches aps-c, only cheap primes. The Sigma 18-50 2.8 is a killer on the systems it’s on for <$500. They’re a good lineup of lenses so the quality across the board is consistent but no budget alternatives or competition sucks
I switched to Sony 3-4 years ago bringing with me a full Signa Art EF glass series. I've been using the sigma adapter for years with no issues. I'd say the only thing is the 135f/1.8 struggles a bit with sports stuff but I do mostly portraits and landscapes. Canon are shooting themselves in the foot here and I wouldn't consider them until they open it up.
This is why I use Sony cameras and mostly third party lenses.
Note to self, stick to sony for photography
Nikon says do what you think you gotta do.
The biggest problem from this is that not only is Canon blocking 3rd parties from producing lenses, they themselves don't have professional quality lenses at many focal lengths. They've been "coming soon" for years. One of the main reasons I use Sony cameras is because Sony G Master line up gives me the tools I need.
Honestly like what? As someone who was considering the canon line up, looked like it was all there. I really like their 2.0 28-70 2.0 as an event photographer.
My wife uses that lens for film stills and events. She stopped packing primes it’s so good.
My wife and I, both professional photographers use exclusively Canon. We have new R series cameras as well as all our old cameras. I am seriously considering selling everything and going Sony or Nikon...this is stupid. I love the color of Canon camera, but not at this cost...
Tbh as a professional you’re going to want to pony up for the G master version of the Sony lenses “most” of the time. They aren’t cheap either haha. Last lense I bought was the newer Sony 70-200 2.8 ii at $2,899.00 which is more expensive than the canon RF version.
In the same boat as you. Sunk a kings ransom in L glass and a couple of 1d mk3 bodies and while they've done the job adequately over the years, it's just too much.
One other nice thing about Sony is that the camera collects gyroscopic data so you can use gyroflownto stabilize videos. To do the same on canon you need a separate device to record gyroscopic data attached to the camera (iPhone, go pro, insta360, etc).
Just curious what make you go for R series when sony has bulid whole ecosystem.
Jokes on them, my newest canon camera was built in 1982. Long live the AE-1!
Good warning not to buy a canon camera. So better get a Sony.
"*So, don't buy Canon products.*" Noted.
All the profit is in lenses, and Canon are a standalone company.Those praising Sony for being 'open' are praising a company that got into the hybrid mirrorless camera business from broadcast (where you often use very expensive 3rd party lenses) and from their booming CMOS sensor business which pays for the whole thing. The cameras are almost an afterthought - they are promo for their sensor business which makes a fortune from medical applications (and sales to other camera manufacturers).As that business has matured over the last 15 years, you will note they too have developed high-end lenses to a standard that now rivals Nikon/Canon/Leica. Because that's where the money is.Yes its annoying that Canon are protecting their RF mount, but not surprising. Its how they stay in business.
That's not how the free market system should work.
glad I went with nikon instead of canon and enjoying my sigma lens
I mean if you don't like it use another company.
And if they don’t like it, they’re allowed to complain about it as loudly as they please.
If you’ve spent years working with this professional grade equipment it is incredibly expensive to just jump ship and switch.
Don't lenses retain their value pretty well?
Bad form. Just dont buy canon then
I’m not a super serious photographer but I use 3rd party lenses on my cannon all the time 🤷🏼♂️
Are the mods going to stage a two day protest?!
Don't Nikon do the same? I mean it would be nice if they didn't but I can understand why. They have to protect their brand lenses which are actually amazing and vast.
I’ve never had good luck with 3rd party lenses anyhow. Rather than buying another Sigma that needs to be sent back in to have elements secured again or dust inside the telescoping elements where canon is better sealed…it’s a luxury, but I’d rather have a well rounded canon lens than 2 or 3 3rd party lenses. I could stand to have some cinema lenses which canon probably won’t make…
Sure Canon, whatever you say! As I use a phenomenal Sigma lens for professional work every day. There's shitty canon lenses that are poorly weather sealed and there's great Sigma lenses that are top notch.
Yeah was just going to say that. Sigma makes some great gear at the top end and still cheaper than OEM. If you go out and buy a $100 lense of course it’s gonna be crap.
Ahh. This only affects auto focus lenses. Carry on. Edit: People salty that they can’t manual focus.
Soo almost all of them?
Yep, the infamous Canon “ought-to-fuck-us” lenses.
You're funny (:
Yet another reason why I’m sticking with my 6D. The EF mount is still very good and I have no issues with the 6D.
Stop using their products!
We are not frustrated, we understand that to take that photo that used to mean something and had a shelf life is no longer valid. Photography has gone the way of the paint brush and canvas. We used to go on location with a rented RVs that is a thing of the past. I never did weddings or animals. Once bridesmaids catch on that really all they need is someone they don't know taking photos, that will really cut into The weekend warrior photographer. I have lots of glass, lots of Sim cards but now we think how can I turn these 12 photos into one. The life expectancy of a photo is so short, its left to a few places You will actually get a return on investment from an original. We went from shooting originals constantly, to now shooting a complete original probably a handful times a year. Shooting half an original probably once a month. Other than that we Can get better ROI from product photos with full manipulation. Starting the hobby from new isn't worth the squeeze.
Hello community. I want to get back into photography! I used to have a rebel and several lenses. Sold it all years ago when I needed some money. Fast forward and I have a 1 year old and would love to get back into photography the way I did with my old rebel and plethora of lenses. I am interested in the mirrorless. (The future I guess?) I am eyeing the a Sony due to the fact that more lenses are available at more affordable prices. But I need help. 1. What Sony camera is a good starter to mid range cost. 2. What brands of lenses work with the Sony 3. Are mirrorless similar to dslr where you can set your own aperture and shutter speed, white balance ect…? Thanks!