Canon to Sony – Here Goes!

Canon to Sony- It Begins

I’ve been a Canon shooter for the past several years. But in November 2013, I went to Nashville along with a bunch of other bloggers, photographers and journalists to try the brand new, unreleased (at that time) Sony A7r, A7 and RX10. In fact, I wrote a blog piece for Stuck in Customs about the whole thing. I knew then I would go mirrorless… and if Sony kept on breaking ground, that would be the camera for me.

I also knew I needed to wait for lenses. They didn’t have the ideal landscape lenses for E-mount cameras… and the adapters were a bit clunky and slow then.

Cut to now. I’m still a Canon shooter… and faller. My pack is heavy. Also big. When it and gravity collude, the thing has a mind of its own. Periodically, it takes me down. As in… BAM!!… to the ground. It’s like practicing martial arts with a really good opponent. Mostly I win… but occasionally when I’m not on my game I’m thrown to the mat.

As a landscape photographer, I venture out onto questionable footing – often. And with a big weight on my back, my balance is sometimes sketchy. While I have really good balance and agility (I WAS an athlete a good part of my life – but never with a pack on my back!) I’m getting tired of being on the teeter end of the totter. Know what I’m sayin’?

Ah, Then The Lenses…

Sony’s lens selections – and adapters – have gotten better.
So have my ouchies from the LAST time I bit the dust.
I’m going Sony. I’ve started with an A7ii. Will go for an A7r or whatever’s next in that line. Now to figure out lenses.

Here’s one from the other night, handheld and taken with my old Sony 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens:

Some of you may remember I’ve had an NEX-7 for a few years. I went basic, lens-wise: the 18-55, 55-210, 10-22. Nothing spectacular, but great for video and fun shooting.
Those are the lenses I wanted to start with, while I was deciding which full frame lenses would fit my bill.

The Part “They” Never Mention

In all the reviews and discussions out there, y’know what I’ve never heard anyone mention? That when you use the lenses for non full-frame cameras, it creates smaller images. So instead of a RAW image with 6000 px across… you now have one that’s 3936 px across. Why does no one talk about this? I hear about vignetting and distortion at the edges and other picky, technical issues. But no one comes right out and says that your RAW image is now almost half the size of what you bought that pricey dang camera to do. This might not make a difference to a lot of folks… but it sure does for me! I want to be able to print BIG. For that, you need ALOT of pixels.

Here’s from the same night, same lens:

Interim: Sony + Metabones + Canon

So… when I go out landscape shooting, I’m using my Canon lenses with a Metabones converter. The autofocus works, but is so slow I feel myself getting older waiting for it to decide if it’ll lock or not. So I set the lens to manual – and use the focus peaking feature to dial it in. It’s not a perfect science for me yet – probably due to me getting used to it – but at least it allows me to keep photographing in a full frame manner.

I tool this with the A7ii and my Canon 24-70 ii f/2.8:
Of course, I went all grainy and arty in the processing – it was a moody day. So perhaps it’s not the best example. But more to come…  I’m just starting to experiment!

It’s a process. I’m particular. I know what I want. I just have to figure out what the best options are to get there.

I particular, I’m looking forward to lighter packs… and not falling down. Not falling down will be AWESOME!!