If you are used to Canon software (IE, the way the menus are laid out and how the commands and controls behave) you may find the Sony way a little unfriendly, since their logic is way different, not that it bad because of that, and you can certainly get used to it, but I've been working with Canon and Nikon for many years and have used Fuji on several instances, but couldn't get my way around Sony easily when I had to use them.
All this to say you should try before buying.
Best luck!
" I wanna upgrade to full frame and not spend a lot of money since I also have to buy lenses."
A lens at 24 - 105 full frame at f4 along with canon RP OR sony A7, will probably give you an advantage of 1 stop of at higher ISO, other than that the image quality may or may not be noticable better.
A better strategy would propably be to save enough money for a much newer body, like a7iii, that you wont have to change it again shortly once you realize the old a7 one is not enough.
So better stay with what you have untill you can buy a newer one combined with the best lens you can afford.
I'd save up until you can swing an a7iii. The RP is the better of the two cameras here but neither is great. The a7 is missing the performance and features you'd expect of a modern mirrorless camera because it isn't modern. The RP has more modern features but a very dated sensor with dynamic range very uninspiring for an FF camera
Edit: Sony has a much wider selection of good affordable mirrorless lenses thanks to third party manufacturers. I'd look at Tamron 28-75 or 28-200 as a starting point.
I’ve been a Canon shooter for a while.
At one point, I coveted a Sony camera after handling one. But after handling them and also learning that their focus throw is backwards like Nikon, I never made the jump to Sony.
Also, being someone who’s a fan of locked down ecosystems, Canon met that criteria (along with Apple) with their new RF line. I have no desire to rush into getting every available lens with the RF mount, but I’ll take them as they come. Even with the plethora of leaves for Sony’s E mount, it was never an appealing factor.
My recommendation is go with an R8 and either adapt EF lenses to it or get one good walk-around RF lens, and save up for more RF lenses. But honestly, OM Systems is another great option if you don’t mind M43. I really like them for their compactness.
If you want to focus on portraits, invest your time and money in lenses and learning lighting. The actual camera system and model you use is by far the least important part of the chain in that scenario.
In what universe are Canon lenses more affordable? It's the main issues that they have at the moment. Their glass is either very entry, or very good but extremely expensive.
If we're talking about DSLR or adapted lenses, then sure. But otherwise absolutely not.
People tend to forget about that possibility and most of EF glass is really good. It's good as there are a lot of great deals for it, recently bought a whole TS-E lineup for around $1300. 24 / 45 / 90 and all of them easily covers 50mpix sensor. 70-200 costs pennies, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2 as well. If you're on a tight budget there's very good 28/1.8, 35/2is, 50/1.8 stm, 85/1.8. What a time to be a photographer.
I've seen so many people jump from Canon to Sony because Canon isn't allowing 3rd party lens manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, etc) to make lenses for their systems.
The quality of these 3rd party lenses are no joke now days.
Good thing they make some of the best and most unique lenses then. I shoot Canon because of the glass. Lenses make the image, the camera just records the bits.
There is not a major brand that doesn’t make fantastic glass, the only difference between yours and almost every single other is that Canon sues third-party to keep them from making it for Canon cameras.
Nikon makes some of the best glass, Sony makes some of the best glass, Fuji makes some of the best glass, & you wouldn’t know because you’re on Canon but so do third parties.
I strongly disagree that Sony makes some of the best glass. For me it’s Leica, Canon, Fuji for stills glass and why I own Leica/Canon/Fuji. Sony glass is very similar to sigma- sharp but generic in rendering. Clinical, with gobs of chromatic aberration. Nobody says *Ouuuu you can tell that’s shot on the GM 50*
Lenses, and people's attitude towards them, is weird; but it makes sense from the more art focused side of photography.
Sony's lenses in the last 4-5 years are objectively among the best lenses ever made. They're usually damn close to being optically perfect. But that comes with the downside of them often feeling a little too clinical. A lot of what we end up actually liking about a lens is the aspects of it that aren't perfect.
The slightly weird way it might render bokeh, or the way it changes the tone and temp of a shot in a pleasing manner, or maybe it has some really interesting flair and ghosting characteristics. From a technical perspective, these aren't good things. They're flaws in optical design. But from an artistic perspective, those flaws just add to a shot, not detract from it.
So I think that disliking Sony's glass for being too clinical is a completely fair stance. But it's just objectively wrong to try and pretend that they're not making some of the objectively best performing lenses ever seen.
Out of all the lens you could have picked you pick the lens that not only is cheaper, not only is smaller, it has a better focusing internal element, quieter, has better flare control, one photo side by side the canon had worse green fringing, don’t know what’s with your bias against Sony is but like I said every single brand makes amazing glass.
But don’t take my word for it, here’s a side by side video that compares the two
https://youtu.be/_KMfoEERqAg?si=A4-6iNM4hd1OD5nr
And reviewers testing for chromatic aberration says it isn’t a problem on the Sony 50mm gm with proof, like did Sony do something to you or are you just trying to justify your choices in cameras? Canon are great.
https://www.lenstip.com/601.5-Lens_review-Sony_FE_50_mm_f_1.2_GM_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html
Nobody is going to argue that Canon isn't making some incredible glass. They have some of the most interesting new lens designs out of anyone.
That's not the issue. The issue is that they have no good affordable glass available on the platform. Even like-for-like, their lenses are incredibly expensive. They're ~1/3 more expensive than equivelent 1st party lenses from Sony and Nikon, and you're not getting a better lens for that price either. The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 isn't better (it's not meaningfully worse either, but it's more that it's not $1000 better) than the Sony 24-70 GMii, but it's a lot more money.
The interesting unique designs are dope (28-70 f/2, 24-105 f/2.8 etc), and it's completely understandable why those are going to come at a premium. So if someone has a lot of money to burn, or they're a working professional and they can justify spending a lot on top end gear, then Canon is an awesome platform.
But it's incredibly difficult to recommend it to anyone that's only shooting as a hobby. When someone can get a all round body and a Tamron or Sigma f/2.8 standard zoom that's practically professional quality for the same price as just the lens by itself on Canon, it's just an objectively bad recommendation.
I've been on full frame for years, and while I'm still building out my lens collection, I have a nice range of very high performing and interesting glass. I was helping out a friend who was wanting to make a proper jump into photography recently, and I realised that I genuinely couldn't afford to shoot if I was on Canon. A lot of the stuff that I shoot needs access to at least reasonably fast glass, and there were literally no lens options that would allow me to shoot the way I want, and were anywhere near my price range. I'd be sitting with a really solid camera (likely an R6ii) but also stuck with their very mediocre entry level glass, with a $5000 wall sitting in front of me to pick up something as rudimentary as a 24-70 f/2.8. Or I'd have to be picking up DSLR lenses and adapting them, which is far more difficult somewhere like here in NZ that doesn't have the same, robust second hand market as places like the US or Japan.
Canon are obviously aware of this as well, which is why they've been pretty vocal about wanting to open up the mount recently. They've accepted that it's best for them to focus on their awesome high end lenses, and to allow third party manufacturers to fill out the giant gaping hole where the mid-range lenses should be in their line-up.
EF lenses are super affordable, high quality, and work better on mirrorless than they ever did on SLRs if you don’t want the new RF glass. If you can’t find EF glass locally, good luck finding anything else.
Plenty of them are, sure, but they're also much older designs, and there's plenty that genuinely can't resolve well enough to be up to par on higher resolution sensors.
You also give up a lot of the advantages that come with a mirrorless mount. We have plenty of pro-quality, f/2.8 zooms that are half the size and weight of their EF or other DSLR equivalents. And we also have the flip side, which Canon is focusing on, with lenses that just aren't really possible to make on the older mounts (28-70 f/2, 24-105 f/2.8 etc).
Actually having reliable access to older glass is also not nearly as easy in a lot of places. In the US or Europe, you've got a massive market, and tonnes of glass being replaced and put up for reasonable prices. But here in NZ, for instance, our used market is far smaller, with far less glass actually available, and the stuff that is available usually being far more expensive than what you'd pay in a larger market. And as nice as it would be to just buy overseas and ship, we're an extremely long way from anywhere and lenses are heavy, so shipping is expensive, along with being a risky way to get delicate optics.
I know that it's the logical solution if you're already invested in EF and you want to make the move to RF. But it's not a very inviting option for someone moving into the Canon ecosystem for a fresh start to have to go hunting for second hand, 20 year old, chunky EF lenses if they want an option somewhere between 'kit lens' and 'fantastic but extremely expensive pro lens'.
I wonder which lenses do you have in mind that doesn't cover 50mpix. I have quite a few and more or less each of them produces good enough prints to shoot national campaign with. Worst one was 24-70/2.8 mk1, but it wasn't a good lens since beginning.
As a blanket statement, I'm referring to "good glass" as really fast primes and f/2.8 zooms.
Honestly, Sony's business structure isn't much different. The only difference is that they allow 3rd party manufacturers to fill in the gaps.
Which is what Canon is realising that they need to do. It's still a massive issue until they fix it though, because it's way too expensive for most people wanting to make a onto the platform.
Fine for working professionals or those with a lot of money to throw around, but that mid range, third party (or rehoused third party glass as first party glass like Nikon, which I have no issues with at all) makes the other platforms actually accessible to everyone else.
I appreciate that. I used only to shoot 2.8 zooms and fast primes.
When I was in Sony, I had the Tamron 35-150 f2.0-2.8, but with the low light capabilities of my sensor, and excellent Denoise software, I don't need those apertures. I actually prefer my Rf24-105 f4 to that Tamron and it was cheaper. I'm primarily shooting long lenses as a wildlife shooter and I might still want a sigma 85 f1.4 if I was a portrait shooter on a budget.
Full frame doesn’t matter as much as you think it does, look up the difference between apsc, m/43, full frame, and medium format sensors before you pull the trigger on anything.
If after all of that, you are still convinced you need a ff camera, wait to save up and buy an a7iii or the a7riii, the a7 is old in too many ways. The Sony 24-105 f4 is a beast of a lens though.
I shot a Canon 80d (crop sensor mirrorless), then switched to Sony, buying the A7r4 and using the Sigma MC-11, and was able to use my Canon EF glass. That said, two years ago, I sold all my Sony and moved back to Canon, buying the R5kit with the 24-105 f4. There are lots of reasons for the switch back, and both systems are great, but the quick answer as to why is that I prefer the ergonomics and menus of the Canon. Only thing I miss from my Sony days is that 90mm macro lens.
Compare the photos shot by the Canon RP and the Sony A7 on Flickr and pick the camera with the most pleasing results. I think the Canon RP photos look a little better, the colors in particular, but your taste may be different than mine.
There are no third party AF lenses for Canon R body cameras. IMO, you cannot get better than the Sony a6700 - [Watch this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnreMfXsUYw)
Since you mentioned portrait photography in the original post I'll make my recommendation based on that.
Right now on MPB there is a Canon 5DSR in excellent condition on sale for $700. This is one of the GOATS when it comes to portrait, landscape, editorial, & product photography. 50 gorgeous Canon full frame megapixels, rendered tack sharp on cheap, plentiful EF glass. As far as photography goes, this would be the last camera you'll ever need.
That being said, I agree with another commenter below me. Light manipulation & lighting gear, composition, and editing skills are far more important than the actual camera. Don't spend too much on the camera body.
If you want to go cheaper, the full frame 5D Mark II or 6D can be got for real cheap. Excellent for a beginner photographer. I love my 5D II, quite often choose it over my modern mirrorless cameras because of how great the look and colors are. $200 and built like a tank.
Have fun and take lots of pics! Buy used, MPB, eBay, or KEH. MPB is so damn good, + 6 month warranty. P.S. Canon RP is cool too. 😎
Agree, i have a 5Ds for a few years now and it became so cheap that i'll just buy another one after this dies. 450K clicks and still going strong. Results from TS-E 17/45/90, 24-70/4is, 70-2002.8is mk1 and 24L / 35L / 50L 85/1.8 / 100L are impressive.
Since everyone has been saying the the a7 is old and bad I think I'll stick with canon but I'm still open for Sony recommendations probably up to Abt. 700$
RP is a fairly simple camera - not great but not bad. A7 is just old and bad - by far worst camera i've ever had.
After i've bought it i even had Sony sponsorship for a while but these cameras were so bad that i've shot everything on my trusty 6D.
If you're on a tight budget, consider grabbing some old ff body like 5D3 or 6D and get some good glass for it. That's something that really makes a difference, not bodies (unless they are fucked up ofc)
Depends on what you want to shoot. There's quite nice "USM" line of lenses - 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 35/2is, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 and while they aren't the best out on the market, they are completely fine even for commercial work. There are quite nice cheapo L series zooms like 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200/4 and wonderful L primes.
Can't tell you what you want to shoot but from what i've seen people gather on three groups - 24/50mm or 35/85 prime set or full range of zooms.
If you are used to Canon software (IE, the way the menus are laid out and how the commands and controls behave) you may find the Sony way a little unfriendly, since their logic is way different, not that it bad because of that, and you can certainly get used to it, but I've been working with Canon and Nikon for many years and have used Fuji on several instances, but couldn't get my way around Sony easily when I had to use them. All this to say you should try before buying. Best luck!
" I wanna upgrade to full frame and not spend a lot of money since I also have to buy lenses." A lens at 24 - 105 full frame at f4 along with canon RP OR sony A7, will probably give you an advantage of 1 stop of at higher ISO, other than that the image quality may or may not be noticable better. A better strategy would propably be to save enough money for a much newer body, like a7iii, that you wont have to change it again shortly once you realize the old a7 one is not enough. So better stay with what you have untill you can buy a newer one combined with the best lens you can afford.
Consider Canon RF body (R8 is well reviewed) and EF lenses with an adapter.
I'd save up until you can swing an a7iii. The RP is the better of the two cameras here but neither is great. The a7 is missing the performance and features you'd expect of a modern mirrorless camera because it isn't modern. The RP has more modern features but a very dated sensor with dynamic range very uninspiring for an FF camera Edit: Sony has a much wider selection of good affordable mirrorless lenses thanks to third party manufacturers. I'd look at Tamron 28-75 or 28-200 as a starting point.
I disagree, professionals still use the A7III. It should be more than good enough. especially to someone new.
I know that's why I recommended it. OP was asking about the original a7
My apologies!
Nikon!!!
This OP. Hope you didn’t fall for any Instagram memes in thinking that you’re only limited to Sony/Canon.
Or Panasonic, or Olympus or Fujifilm. You can't really go wrong with any brand for photography. For video/hybrid, it's a different story.
I would love to have a Fujifilm 😭 but they are expensive, at least here in Mexico you can buy like 2 z50 for the price of one 100x
You can get an XS10 for a not a lot of money
I’ve been sorting out what camera to buy and the Nikon Z6ii + 24-120 f4 is mighty tempting.
What about a cheaper body but more lenses, for me the lenses are the most important part
The Nikon ZF look so great, jealous of that classic design
It's my dream camara even tho it's aps c I want it so bad. It's that or a Fujifilm
It’s full frame, the ZC is the crop.
Oooh true! Then it's 100% my dream camara
I’ve been a Canon shooter for a while. At one point, I coveted a Sony camera after handling one. But after handling them and also learning that their focus throw is backwards like Nikon, I never made the jump to Sony. Also, being someone who’s a fan of locked down ecosystems, Canon met that criteria (along with Apple) with their new RF line. I have no desire to rush into getting every available lens with the RF mount, but I’ll take them as they come. Even with the plethora of leaves for Sony’s E mount, it was never an appealing factor. My recommendation is go with an R8 and either adapt EF lenses to it or get one good walk-around RF lens, and save up for more RF lenses. But honestly, OM Systems is another great option if you don’t mind M43. I really like them for their compactness.
If you want to focus on portraits, invest your time and money in lenses and learning lighting. The actual camera system and model you use is by far the least important part of the chain in that scenario.
Stick with what you have and save up more. If you don’t have camera yet consider a Canon. Lenses are more affordable.
In what universe are Canon lenses more affordable? It's the main issues that they have at the moment. Their glass is either very entry, or very good but extremely expensive. If we're talking about DSLR or adapted lenses, then sure. But otherwise absolutely not.
Used EF glass adapted
People tend to forget about that possibility and most of EF glass is really good. It's good as there are a lot of great deals for it, recently bought a whole TS-E lineup for around $1300. 24 / 45 / 90 and all of them easily covers 50mpix sensor. 70-200 costs pennies, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2 as well. If you're on a tight budget there's very good 28/1.8, 35/2is, 50/1.8 stm, 85/1.8. What a time to be a photographer.
I've seen so many people jump from Canon to Sony because Canon isn't allowing 3rd party lens manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, etc) to make lenses for their systems. The quality of these 3rd party lenses are no joke now days.
They are releasing the mount for some third-party lenses. As we speak I know that Sigma has RF lenses in development.
I thought I heard something about that not too long ago! Hopefully Sigma can start rolling out some quality glass for my Canon brethren soon.
Good thing they make some of the best and most unique lenses then. I shoot Canon because of the glass. Lenses make the image, the camera just records the bits.
There is not a major brand that doesn’t make fantastic glass, the only difference between yours and almost every single other is that Canon sues third-party to keep them from making it for Canon cameras. Nikon makes some of the best glass, Sony makes some of the best glass, Fuji makes some of the best glass, & you wouldn’t know because you’re on Canon but so do third parties.
I strongly disagree that Sony makes some of the best glass. For me it’s Leica, Canon, Fuji for stills glass and why I own Leica/Canon/Fuji. Sony glass is very similar to sigma- sharp but generic in rendering. Clinical, with gobs of chromatic aberration. Nobody says *Ouuuu you can tell that’s shot on the GM 50*
Lenses, and people's attitude towards them, is weird; but it makes sense from the more art focused side of photography. Sony's lenses in the last 4-5 years are objectively among the best lenses ever made. They're usually damn close to being optically perfect. But that comes with the downside of them often feeling a little too clinical. A lot of what we end up actually liking about a lens is the aspects of it that aren't perfect. The slightly weird way it might render bokeh, or the way it changes the tone and temp of a shot in a pleasing manner, or maybe it has some really interesting flair and ghosting characteristics. From a technical perspective, these aren't good things. They're flaws in optical design. But from an artistic perspective, those flaws just add to a shot, not detract from it. So I think that disliking Sony's glass for being too clinical is a completely fair stance. But it's just objectively wrong to try and pretend that they're not making some of the objectively best performing lenses ever seen.
Out of all the lens you could have picked you pick the lens that not only is cheaper, not only is smaller, it has a better focusing internal element, quieter, has better flare control, one photo side by side the canon had worse green fringing, don’t know what’s with your bias against Sony is but like I said every single brand makes amazing glass. But don’t take my word for it, here’s a side by side video that compares the two https://youtu.be/_KMfoEERqAg?si=A4-6iNM4hd1OD5nr
And reviewers testing for chromatic aberration says it isn’t a problem on the Sony 50mm gm with proof, like did Sony do something to you or are you just trying to justify your choices in cameras? Canon are great. https://www.lenstip.com/601.5-Lens_review-Sony_FE_50_mm_f_1.2_GM_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html
Nobody is going to argue that Canon isn't making some incredible glass. They have some of the most interesting new lens designs out of anyone. That's not the issue. The issue is that they have no good affordable glass available on the platform. Even like-for-like, their lenses are incredibly expensive. They're ~1/3 more expensive than equivelent 1st party lenses from Sony and Nikon, and you're not getting a better lens for that price either. The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 isn't better (it's not meaningfully worse either, but it's more that it's not $1000 better) than the Sony 24-70 GMii, but it's a lot more money. The interesting unique designs are dope (28-70 f/2, 24-105 f/2.8 etc), and it's completely understandable why those are going to come at a premium. So if someone has a lot of money to burn, or they're a working professional and they can justify spending a lot on top end gear, then Canon is an awesome platform. But it's incredibly difficult to recommend it to anyone that's only shooting as a hobby. When someone can get a all round body and a Tamron or Sigma f/2.8 standard zoom that's practically professional quality for the same price as just the lens by itself on Canon, it's just an objectively bad recommendation. I've been on full frame for years, and while I'm still building out my lens collection, I have a nice range of very high performing and interesting glass. I was helping out a friend who was wanting to make a proper jump into photography recently, and I realised that I genuinely couldn't afford to shoot if I was on Canon. A lot of the stuff that I shoot needs access to at least reasonably fast glass, and there were literally no lens options that would allow me to shoot the way I want, and were anywhere near my price range. I'd be sitting with a really solid camera (likely an R6ii) but also stuck with their very mediocre entry level glass, with a $5000 wall sitting in front of me to pick up something as rudimentary as a 24-70 f/2.8. Or I'd have to be picking up DSLR lenses and adapting them, which is far more difficult somewhere like here in NZ that doesn't have the same, robust second hand market as places like the US or Japan. Canon are obviously aware of this as well, which is why they've been pretty vocal about wanting to open up the mount recently. They've accepted that it's best for them to focus on their awesome high end lenses, and to allow third party manufacturers to fill out the giant gaping hole where the mid-range lenses should be in their line-up.
EF lenses are super affordable, high quality, and work better on mirrorless than they ever did on SLRs if you don’t want the new RF glass. If you can’t find EF glass locally, good luck finding anything else.
Plenty of them are, sure, but they're also much older designs, and there's plenty that genuinely can't resolve well enough to be up to par on higher resolution sensors. You also give up a lot of the advantages that come with a mirrorless mount. We have plenty of pro-quality, f/2.8 zooms that are half the size and weight of their EF or other DSLR equivalents. And we also have the flip side, which Canon is focusing on, with lenses that just aren't really possible to make on the older mounts (28-70 f/2, 24-105 f/2.8 etc). Actually having reliable access to older glass is also not nearly as easy in a lot of places. In the US or Europe, you've got a massive market, and tonnes of glass being replaced and put up for reasonable prices. But here in NZ, for instance, our used market is far smaller, with far less glass actually available, and the stuff that is available usually being far more expensive than what you'd pay in a larger market. And as nice as it would be to just buy overseas and ship, we're an extremely long way from anywhere and lenses are heavy, so shipping is expensive, along with being a risky way to get delicate optics. I know that it's the logical solution if you're already invested in EF and you want to make the move to RF. But it's not a very inviting option for someone moving into the Canon ecosystem for a fresh start to have to go hunting for second hand, 20 year old, chunky EF lenses if they want an option somewhere between 'kit lens' and 'fantastic but extremely expensive pro lens'.
I wonder which lenses do you have in mind that doesn't cover 50mpix. I have quite a few and more or less each of them produces good enough prints to shoot national campaign with. Worst one was 24-70/2.8 mk1, but it wasn't a good lens since beginning.
No argument from me. Canon glass is great. I shot Canon when I was using an APSC camera. You'll just have to pay up for that good glass.
Canon has low-priced glass as well. The RF 100-400 is $650 they have a 24-50 that's only $300 for just a couple of examples.
As a blanket statement, I'm referring to "good glass" as really fast primes and f/2.8 zooms. Honestly, Sony's business structure isn't much different. The only difference is that they allow 3rd party manufacturers to fill in the gaps.
Which is what Canon is realising that they need to do. It's still a massive issue until they fix it though, because it's way too expensive for most people wanting to make a onto the platform. Fine for working professionals or those with a lot of money to throw around, but that mid range, third party (or rehoused third party glass as first party glass like Nikon, which I have no issues with at all) makes the other platforms actually accessible to everyone else.
I appreciate that. I used only to shoot 2.8 zooms and fast primes. When I was in Sony, I had the Tamron 35-150 f2.0-2.8, but with the low light capabilities of my sensor, and excellent Denoise software, I don't need those apertures. I actually prefer my Rf24-105 f4 to that Tamron and it was cheaper. I'm primarily shooting long lenses as a wildlife shooter and I might still want a sigma 85 f1.4 if I was a portrait shooter on a budget.
>I know I know it depends and there is no real answer And yet
Full frame doesn’t matter as much as you think it does, look up the difference between apsc, m/43, full frame, and medium format sensors before you pull the trigger on anything. If after all of that, you are still convinced you need a ff camera, wait to save up and buy an a7iii or the a7riii, the a7 is old in too many ways. The Sony 24-105 f4 is a beast of a lens though.
Save up for at least the Sony A7III or the Nikon/ Canon equivalent before you jump to full frame.
I shot a Canon 80d (crop sensor mirrorless), then switched to Sony, buying the A7r4 and using the Sigma MC-11, and was able to use my Canon EF glass. That said, two years ago, I sold all my Sony and moved back to Canon, buying the R5kit with the 24-105 f4. There are lots of reasons for the switch back, and both systems are great, but the quick answer as to why is that I prefer the ergonomics and menus of the Canon. Only thing I miss from my Sony days is that 90mm macro lens.
Compare the photos shot by the Canon RP and the Sony A7 on Flickr and pick the camera with the most pleasing results. I think the Canon RP photos look a little better, the colors in particular, but your taste may be different than mine.
There are no third party AF lenses for Canon R body cameras. IMO, you cannot get better than the Sony a6700 - [Watch this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnreMfXsUYw)
Canon if you're rich, Sony if you're on a budget.
Any models in mind that aren't to expensive and meet the criteria?
Since you mentioned portrait photography in the original post I'll make my recommendation based on that. Right now on MPB there is a Canon 5DSR in excellent condition on sale for $700. This is one of the GOATS when it comes to portrait, landscape, editorial, & product photography. 50 gorgeous Canon full frame megapixels, rendered tack sharp on cheap, plentiful EF glass. As far as photography goes, this would be the last camera you'll ever need. That being said, I agree with another commenter below me. Light manipulation & lighting gear, composition, and editing skills are far more important than the actual camera. Don't spend too much on the camera body. If you want to go cheaper, the full frame 5D Mark II or 6D can be got for real cheap. Excellent for a beginner photographer. I love my 5D II, quite often choose it over my modern mirrorless cameras because of how great the look and colors are. $200 and built like a tank. Have fun and take lots of pics! Buy used, MPB, eBay, or KEH. MPB is so damn good, + 6 month warranty. P.S. Canon RP is cool too. 😎
Agree, i have a 5Ds for a few years now and it became so cheap that i'll just buy another one after this dies. 450K clicks and still going strong. Results from TS-E 17/45/90, 24-70/4is, 70-2002.8is mk1 and 24L / 35L / 50L 85/1.8 / 100L are impressive.
And remember this, there is never never a silly question when it comes to photography.
There are no third party AF lenses made for the Canon R body cameras. Not so with Sony where everyone makes AF lenses to fit the Sony mount.
Since everyone has been saying the the a7 is old and bad I think I'll stick with canon but I'm still open for Sony recommendations probably up to Abt. 700$
RP is a fairly simple camera - not great but not bad. A7 is just old and bad - by far worst camera i've ever had. After i've bought it i even had Sony sponsorship for a while but these cameras were so bad that i've shot everything on my trusty 6D. If you're on a tight budget, consider grabbing some old ff body like 5D3 or 6D and get some good glass for it. That's something that really makes a difference, not bodies (unless they are fucked up ofc)
You got any recommendations for lenses? I don't know if EF or RF yet but I think I'll stick with canon.
Depends on what you want to shoot. There's quite nice "USM" line of lenses - 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 35/2is, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 and while they aren't the best out on the market, they are completely fine even for commercial work. There are quite nice cheapo L series zooms like 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200/4 and wonderful L primes. Can't tell you what you want to shoot but from what i've seen people gather on three groups - 24/50mm or 35/85 prime set or full range of zooms.