Canon 5D Mklll vs Sony ALT-A99

[Dinarius]

I've already asked a question on another thread about the possible arrival of a Canon 5D MkIV.

Meanwhile, I noted that there is a discussion regarding Sony and Hasselblad, and how the latter is re-badging the former at a much increased price.

Being a very contented user of a Sony RX100 (superb little runabout!), and never having heard of the A99 - to be honest, I've never considered switching from Canon - this prompted me to do some research.

Inputting the two cameras into a Google search, the first hit I got was the following......

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs-Sony-SLT-A99

As a working pro, my BS detector went into overdrive when I saw what the winner was and, more importantly, why it was/is the winner.

I should say in advance that everything I do is tripod based, using the self-timer, mirror lockup, at native ISO, with either flash, tungsten or lots of available light. In short, image quality is paramount.

So, looking at the headline reasons in the link above for why the Canon won: would I trade HDR and ludicrously high ISO performance, for greater colour depth and wider dynamic range, higher true resolution and (what they term) 10% better image quality. Absolutely not!

But, I freely admit that I work in a very specific way.

I would be very tempted to try the Sony with an adapter for my Canon lenses.

Decisions, decisions.

D.

Ps. For those who don't use mirror lockup/self-timer combined on their cameras, try it. You will be amazed at the difference it makes to firing by pressing the shutter button, even on a very good tripod.

[Jim Pascoe]

I'm a 1Ds3 user too, and given your working style would there be any advantage gained in swapping the camera for any other Canon, or Sony?  The 5D3 is a great camera, but not sure it would add anything to what you already have - which is a great tool.

Jim

[Dinarius]

Hi Jim,

6-7 years is a light year in technology terms.

I have not made direct comparisons between the Sonys (A99 and 7R) and the 5D Mklll. Nor with any of these and the 1Ds.

I can only assume that they would be a like for like (in terms of workflow) improvement on the 1Ds - though obviously, this would have to be confirmed.

But, if it is the case, then it is only a case of comparing them against one another. In that case, the IQ features that I would be looking for - basically, image quality - would seem to favour the Sonys.

Thanks for the reply.

D.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What improvements are you looking for?

I shoot Alpha 99 and may have some info, raw files and stuff.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Jim,

6-7 years is a light year in technology terms.

I have not made direct comparisons between the Sonys (A99 and 7R) and the 5D Mklll. Nor with any of these and the 1Ds.

I can only assume that they would be a like for like (in terms of workflow) improvement on the 1Ds - though obviously, this would have to be confirmed.

But, if it is the case, then it is only a case of comparing them against one another. In that case, the IQ features that I would be looking for - basically, image quality - would seem to favour the Sonys.

Thanks for the reply.

D.

[Paul2660]

Single biggest difference, is that the A99, uses the Sony Sensor and it has a much better useable range and will allow for shadow recovery that the 5D MKIII just can't do.  The 5D MKIII will show traditional canon shadow noise, i.e. banding, and red/blue splotches.   

It's all a matter of what you shoot and workflow, as for my work, Canon always required a bracketing series of exposures in landscape work as I knew I could not pull up the shadows without noise.  This is at base iso.  The Sony 24 and 36MP sensors can do this and allow more freedom in shooting at least for me.  I made the switch in April 2012 as soon as I saw Fred Miranda's initial report.  For me the Sony chip just offers more. 

The Canon 6D is an improvement over the MKIII in this regard.  The noise from the 6D does not contain the same banding and splotches, but instead just seem to appear as grain.  I use the 6D in my night work and love the output.  Still preferring the Sony in the Nikon's for daytime. 

No shots at Canon here, I worked up the Canon chain from 2002 on up starting with the 1ds MKI.  With the Sony chip I saw something I felt was revolutionary and still feel that way.  For me work it made more sense and I have never looked back.  Many others did not and that is a personal decision we each have to make. And based on where Canon is today, still pushing the 21-22 chips in the MKIII, I feel ti was a good move.   Sony came out about 1 year later with the A99 and I did not want to make yet another investment in glass.  But I do love working with a EVF and Sony's is top notch.

In your situation, I would strongly consider the Sony A7 or A7r, as you can get full use of your Canon glass on the Sony with a metabones adapter.  Great solution for a Canon shooter where as with Nikon things are much more limited. 

Paul Caldwell

[Jim Pascoe]

Hi Jim,

6-7 years is a light year in technology terms.

I have not made direct comparisons between the Sonys (A99 and 7R) and the 5D Mklll. Nor with any of these and the 1Ds.

I can only assume that they would be a like for like (in terms of workflow) improvement on the 1Ds - though obviously, this would have to be confirmed.

But, if it is the case, then it is only a case of comparing them against one another. In that case, the IQ features that I would be looking for - basically, image quality - would seem to favour the Sonys.

Thanks for the reply.

D.

Well I cannot speak for the Sony, but in Canon terms I think it's unlikely the 5D3 would offer any significant difference over your existing camera.  It has much the same pixel count and of course high ISO is of no interest to you.  Always nice to have a newer camera but I think the one you have is seriously hard to beat.  Depends on whether you have a significant investment in lenses I should think.

Jim

[MatthewCromer]

You can't use your Canon lenses on the Alpha 99.

You need the E mount Sony Alpha 7 or 7R and an adaptor to mount your Canon glass...

[MTGFender]

Hi D.,

I've had both Sony A99 and Canon 5D Mark III.
If you expect to see the difference in IQ, there is none. I've bought the Sony A99 just to use with the Zeiss 85mm and 135mm ZA for AF purposes. I really like these 2 lenses.
Although I like EVF in Sony A99, the optical VF and live view from LCD in Canon is more than enough.
Believe me, it's not fun to use the adapter. The Sony A7/A7R, to me, is too small to use with your Canon lenses (I've had RX1). I tried and didn't like it at all unless you buy it to use with Leica M lenses. The balance of small body and disproportionated bigger lenses is terrible.
Do you hear about the shutter vibration in Sony A7R?
Unless you want to sell Canon body & lenses and go all the way to Sony A7/A7R for their compact or for using with Leica/Zeiss M lenses, I would think twice. You should try first before selling your Canon gears for the hype of the new Sony A7/A7R. Changing system is the worse nightmare! I think the Canon 5D Mark IV or whatever name is around the corner.

Best,
Pramote

[peterottaway]

The release of cameras such as the RX1r (no AA 24MP) plus the A7r has led to expectations about SLT replacements sometime during 2014 by Sony. It wouldn't do much good for their sales of the A99 if you can pick up an A7 for a $1000 less. Different cameras for sure but it would make for a very lopsided range and not maximizing potential sales. There is supposed to be an Nex 6 / 7 replacement announced on the 12 February and a new APS camera some weeks later. Rumours  about new FF cameras have been all over the place, but unless Sony has a major surprise which absolutely no one knows about then I think we can expect an improved 24MP and the 36MP sensor to turn up using the A99 body.

Canon hasn't released anything new for their middle and high end for several years. Even if they have been complacent and / or technologically caught out they are a large company with deep pockets and highly skilled staff. This situation is unlikely to continue. Sure they may go a different way to what Nikon or Sony but they have to respond. Just offering improved video is not going to be enough, and anyway to improve the video is going to require a reworking of the entire hardware. I can't see how Canon wouldn't get better stills performance out of such an upgrade.

Of course it is likely that this may not suit some current Canon users who will decide to move on elsewhere. And the Sony Ax cameras give them an easier opportunity than in the past. But I can't see much point in moving over to the current A99 without an immediate very compelling reason.

Zeiss is going to offer an number of lenses later in the year and so for someone who has bought an A7r and is considering a change, then wait and see what develops at Photokina.

[robdickinson]

Just be aware SLT tech throws away 30% of your light just to maintain (PDAF)autofocus.

As for canon not doing anything new, well the 5d3 and 1dx are class leading all round solid cameras. OK nothing new like SLT or EVF but IMO they are detrimental to the overall package. If its not broke dont fix it.

Yes canon could do with fixing the low ISO read noise, that is their only real problem.

[peterottaway]

To each his own. I use ND and Polariser filters for a considerable amount of my work so a 30% light loss with SLT is of no concern to me. If things become tight I can always bump up the ISO from 100 to 160. Proper Live View, focus peaking and a reasonable indication through the EVF of the scene, together with what the sensor is seeing is much more important to me.

[robdickinson]

Sure, you always shoot at ISO 100?

You can get proper live view, focus peeking and the whole scene, zeberas included , and more, with canon and Magic lantern.

Throw on a loupe , job done, big evf..