Canon EOS 6D or Sony Alpha 7R or 7S?

[cupcake_nancy]

Travel camera? Does that mean a small, light body, with HUGE, full-sized lenses on it? Like an A7 or A7r?

And no, 55mm lens is no substiutute for any other lens that has a zoom function; it is a narrowish angle of view, single focal length lens, designed for a semi-selective, but NOT quite telephoto view. Many 50mm lenses are really about 48.5mm, and a 55mm lens is decidedly "tighter" than a 50 in angle of view. Might not seem like it, but there is an actual reason the 55mm length has been used by Nikon for 50 years, and is gaining popularity in just the past year with other manufacturer's having released ALL-NEW 55mm lens designs.

Read the A7 A7r review written after MONTHS of actual use and testing--not the garbage written by fanboys after a day or two of ownership...Sony A7 and A7r Review | Sans Mirror — mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

Check out Thom's other reviews too. If you mean "travel camera" as being light, and small, with SMALL LENSES too, then Olympus is what you want. If you want the highest possible technical image quality, you want a Nikon. No camera or brand is perfect, and some that are good have "issues" with software, or with being under-spec'd and priced rather high, or being five years out of date and behind the times, despite being made "today", but using sensors designed in 2007 or 2008...

hi there thanks for the detailed reply. Whether a camera comes with big or small lenses is not important to me. I want a good camera which shoots professional travel photos, lightweight & compact. Full-frame possibly as I assumed this will automatically mean better quality & more you can do with your photography. Could you specify which olympus & nikon model please? The links take me to an empty amazon page

i'll read the reviews of Hogan. Thank you

 

[bwana4swahili]

Hi guys,
hopefully someone can help me with the decision I'm struggling with...

I' going on a round the world trip come November and am looking for a professional camera. I'll be showcasing my photography on the web. I'm an amateur / enthusiast and have so far owned a Sony Alpha SLR camera which I was quite happy about but initially I wanted to replace it with either a Canon EOS 70D or Canon 6D. After a lot of research I decided to go for the Canon 6D. In the meantime, I have held it in my hands and found it quite big and bulky. I'm only going to be taking a 45l backpack (i know...it's mad!) so the camera will be taking up a lot of space. Needless to say...having to carry the camera wherever I go could be quite annoying. So I started looking into alternatives and the Sony Alpha 7R or 7S caught my eye. It's incredibly light weight and small - so perfect for long travel. However, do the Canon 6D and the Sony Alpha 7R/S compare at all? Which one would you go for and why? Can the Sony shoot good professional photos? I'm a bit hesitant as it is not an SLR camera but apparently the image quality is amazing. I also would have gone for Canon's ef 24-105 l & the 50ef lense. What would be the equivalent for the Sony, please? It seems they currently only have 4 or 5 lenses available...

If the Canon is really the much better camera, I would consider buying a bigger backpack and bite the bullet and carry the 'brick'.

But if the Sony compares to it, I think my decision is made. But which Sony to go for? The R or the S? I'll be shooting landscape mainly and sometimes portrait. Photography will be mainly at day-time.

Thank you for your help!!

If you're looking for a comparable Sony A7 Series camera to the Canon 6D, then the A7 is your camera. I have both the A7R and the A7S. The A7R has excellent resolution and good low light capability. The A7S has 1/3 the resolution and excellent low light capability (bordering on ridiculious low light performance).

As for resolution, I have no print quality issues with the A7S up to about 8x10 prints, probably could go larger with no noticeable degradation. Prints off the A7R could go to three times this size with quite acceptable results. For web display either camera will be MORE than adequate.

If you go with Sony lenses, the choice is a bit limited but some great glass exists in an FE mount. If you go with Canon lenses and an adapter, you lose autofocus speed and don't gain much in size/weight over a Canon 6D and lens. I only own one Sony lens, the A7 28-70mm kit lens. It works nicely for genera purpose shooting on the A7S. I use a combination of Canon, Minolta, Pentax, M42 and T2 lenses on both cameras.

You mention shooting landscapes === A7R. Portraits === A7/A7R/A7S. Daytime === A7/A7R or for a few more $$$ the A7S.

Good luck!

bwa

 

[Derrel]

Nikon D610 with 24-85 VR lens, and 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR-G OR the less-expemnsive yet still very decent 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 AF-S VR-G zoom. The Nikon D7100 is a nice, 24-megapixel compact d-slr camera with VERY high image quality potential. Full frame means less depth of field at each picture angle.APS-C means a bit more depth of field, and easier to shoot deep DOF scenes hand-held with a VR lens.

Any of the Olympus - models; the new E-10 is SUPER nice and a great value. OLYMPUS makes some wonderful lenses! The smaller sensor of the m4/3 means MORE depth of field at each picture angle.

The m4/3 cameras are small, light, and use smaller lenses and have more depth of field in a camera that looks less threatening, and which is lighter, smaller, and easier to pocket and carry.

Full-frame means higher potential technical image quality with LARGE, heavy, expensive HIGH-grade lenses from Nikon or Canon. Something like a 14-42mm zoom from Olympus, a small,light good zoom, for a full-frame Canon or Nikon is a BIGGER, heavier, $2499 lens from Canon, the 24-70mm L-series, which has less depth of field, weights what? 6x as much? And it's HUGE, and painted white. "Travel camera" means one thing to me; smaller, lighter, less-conspicuous, easier to carry. I just checked my links: they go right to Thom Hogan's sansmirror page and the reviews I mentioned earlier.

A trip to a store that sells gear might be in order.