Since I’m shooting Sony FE, and my wife is shooting Canon RF, and we have quite a collection of cameras and lenses, I’m in a unique position to compare the two systems.

I’ve seen lots of talk online about Canon colour science, Sony colours and so on. It all assumes you’re using in-camera jpeg, and/or native import profiles for Lightroom. Those are the only situations where you’ll perceive any difference in colours. Otherwise, both systems have fantastic colours; Canon profiles tend to produce neutral to greenish colour balance, while the newer Sony profiles tend to have a slight magenta accent, very similar to what I’ve been getting from Fuji Velvia emulsion on film. Depending on what you subjectively prefer, one default will be better than the other. Also, Sony has better auto white balance; their ambient (non-TTL) sensor seems to measure white balance more consistently in difficult conditions. That doesn’t mean Canon is bad – the difference is very slight. The colour quality of both camera systems is amazing. The story about Sony colours being crap date back to their original colour profiles, which were actually nice for getting strong greens in nature photography, but apparently gave garish results for portraiture. That issue doesn’t exist anymore, but the rumours persist.

Canon colours.

Sony colours.

Sony high-end bodies have more resolution than Canon high-end bodies; 61MP vs. 45MP. That sounds like a big difference, but in reality it is slight.

Canon has less pronounced noise at high ISO, but Lightroom AI NR seems to be more successful at removing it on Sony files, at least that’s what I noticed in some difficult situations at and around ISO 12800. With Canon, you can get away without AI NR up until very high ISO values. Sony has a noisier sensor, and the character of the noise on Canon is less intrusive, and that seems to be consistent across multiple models. ISO 12800 is the hard limit on both. After that, the quality deteriorates rapidly.

Dynamic range on Sony is better. In shadows, both can pull off insane levels of detail, but in the highlights, I noticed that I can rescue more with A7RV/CR than with Canon R5. Essentially, with Canon you need to be more careful not to clip the highlights.

Ergonomically speaking, both are good but Canon has a more rounded grip which makes it more comfortable to carry around. However, Sony has better control layout and more programmable buttons, and also better autofocus system, which makes it more ergonomic in actual use. Canon R5 doesn’t have the PASM wheel and instead relies on a complex system with a wheel, locking button and a top display which is hard to see in bright light, which is all stupid and incredibly annoying to use.

Controls on the lenses are not standardised on either system, which is annoying. For instance, lots of early Sony lenses don’t have the AF/MF switch. That’s ergonomically bad, but at least Sony accounted for it in software so you can easily switch it in camera. On Canon, however, there’s the implicit assumption that the switch is on the lens, which is a superior solution, but then they decided to do a cost cutting measure on some lenses, like the RF 16mm f/2.8, which doesn’t have the ability to switch to MF on the lens (instead the switch is control/focus for the control ring), and this functionality is not really available in camera (on the RP body, in particular), so when you trip the switch to focus, the control ring does the manual focusing, except for the fact that the autofocus isn’t turned off in camera and so when you half-press the shutter the AF starts hunting and messes up the focus. Canon has more of such stupid, poorly designed “features” that seem to result from the whole system not having been really well thought out from the start, and instead happened as a knee-jerk reaction to Sony’s mirrorless success.

The lens choice on both systems is excellent. Canon has an excellent choice of inexpensive primes, but its high-end L lenses are overpriced, by a factor of cca. 500 EUR per lens compared to the equivalent Sony GM lenses. Mind you, both L and GM lenses are excellent; image quality and build quality are similarly great. It’s just that Canon version will cost you 500 EUR more. On the other hand, if you don’t go for the L tier, their basic lenses are excellent and inexpensive and, generally, are the way to go. Also, if you have old EF lenses, Canon makes a superb adapter that is completely reliable and non-glitchy, unlike the third party adapters for Sony. So, this makes the Canon RF system the system of choice if you have a large collection of EF lenses that you wish to keep. The problem with Canon is that this is as far as extending the system goes; there is little to no third party lenses for them, but considering that the EF system is incredibly vast, and the modern RF system is excellent and big enough, you are unlikely to miss out.

Sony, however, is the system of choice if you want to mount almost anything to it; there are all kinds of adapters available, for everything ranging from old Minolta and Leica M lenses, to (glitchy, but functional) Canon EF and so on. Also, Sigma, Tamron and others see Sony FE system as the primary system they release their new lenses for, so there is a vast collection of third party lenses, some of which are cheap, while the others are top tier. So, if you want to play with adapting old lenses, Sony is the way to go. If, however, you want rock-solid and reliable behaviour of Canon EF lenses, you should go the Canon RF route.

Vintage Minolta glass on Sony.

Sigma lenses, in particular, are a very good reason to consider Sony, because they are exceptionally good, while being consistently cheaper than Sony’s offerings. Some lenses from their Art series are acclaimed as some of the best lenses ever made, and from what I had the opportunity to try personally, that’s no exaggeration.

Sigma 85mm Art lens on Sony.

Comparison between Canon and Sony equivalent lenses shows almost no difference. RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS and FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS shows that Sony has better minimum focusing distance, and other than that they might as well be the same lens, for how similar results they produce. They even have the similarly nasty flare when shooting into the sun. This is a general rule – RF 135mm f/1.8 L and FE 135mm f/1.8 GM are optically indistinguishable and might as well be the same lens. Essentially, if you’re in it for top image quality, either system will provide it. It’s just that the top tier lenses will be less expensive on the Sony system, because Sony tax is less than Canon tax because Sigma is breathing down Sony’s neck with excellent Art lenses on the same mount, so Sony needs to be reasonable with the prices.

Canon swallowtail.

Sony swallowtail.

One significant advantage of the Sony is the ability to use single-point AF which locks and switches to active tracking with subject recognition on half-shutter. This gives it a huge advantage when shooting insects, for instance. I don’t know what the newest Canon bodies do, but R5 lacks that ability and Biljana frequently complains about it. The speed of the camera and the autofocus, however, is generally excellent and not perceivably different from the Sony A7RV. Sony just has a smarter AI chip for tracking, apparently.

So, the conclusion is that both systems allow you to get into serious photography at a reasonably low cost, and I would actually prefer Canon for that – a combination of R8 and RP bodies with the inexpensive normal-tier primes will give you incredible image quality for very reasonable money. As you progress into more expensive new top-tier lenses, the story changes, and here the Sony lenses are significantly less expensive for equal performance.

Sony has less consistent lens offerings because they initially made lenses in collaboration with Zeiss, and quality is very much a mixed bag for their early stuff. Some are still good, and some are better avoided. Later, as they bought Minolta and invested serious money into lens development, they became increasingly better, and now they are slammed hard into the ceiling of the best stuff ever made for any kind of money. Also, if you don’t like what Sony is doing in some cheaper lens category, Tamron will be sure to give you very solid options, that usually beat Sony in the lower price range.

Sony puts IBIS in all their bodies. Canon reserves it for their higher tier of cameras. This means that image stabilization will work better across the Sony system, as a rule. In order to get a cheap prime with stabilization, you will need to buy a more expensive body on the Canon system, while on Sony everything from A7II onwards has IBIS.

Basically, both systems are quite similar, but still different enough that one might be better than the other for you, depending on what you intend to do with it, what kind of lenses you intend to buy, and so on. The systems are vast, and professionals, advanced amateurs and beginners alike can configure whatever they prefer in either system. You can get inexpensive but still excellent lenses, or you can get amazing, but also amazingly expensive glass for either system.

I was thinking about why photography is a different thing for me than any other instance of buying things and then getting bored of them quickly and not feeling anything for them.

You see, with photography, there is indeed that brief rush of getting the new lens or a camera. However, I don’t actually start feeling anything for the gear until after I’ve made some really good pictures with it. And then, it’s something different – I love the gear, but that’s completely detached from physical possession. It becomes something else – not a physical object that I own, but part of the creative process that made something I love.

This, for instance, was made with 35mm negative film – Kodak Gold 100 or 200, I think. Minolta X-300, MD 35-70mm f/3.5 lens. I still remember the moment I took it; sometime in early 1999, I think, on Sljeme. I love it; it brings me back there instantly, and the colours turned out so good, I never really repeated anything as good with the primroses. But I no longer own that camera, or the scanner, and I no longer shoot film. It doesn’t matter. The equipment, the moment, the motive and everything are tied together in the picture in ways that transcend equipment ownership.

This was taken with the Olympus E-1 and ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, my first proper digital camera, after the abortive attempt that was Fuji S602z. It had such wonderful colours, the first digital camera that produced colours that matched slide film in my perception. I love the results. I sold both the camera and the lens during hard times when I needed the money for the bills. By today’s standards, it’s completely obsolete. I have great memories with it, though, and great pictures. Would I buy it again? No. The feeling and the memories are detached from ownership; having the camera wouldn’t change them.

I made this with the Soligor SR-300md camera, MC 50mm f/1.4 Rokkor lens, on Fuji Sensia 100 slide film; scanned with Minolta Dimage IV film scanner. E6 slide film no longer exists as a technology; it is lost to time. I can remember pausing Romana, taking the picture, and then letting her eat it. It was in Dotrščina, I don’t remember the exact year, but during the time I owned that film scanner, and I sold it to finance buying Olympus E-1 in 2004. I love the picture, the atmosphere and the colours. The chemical process that allowed me to make it is lost to me and I can never retrieve it; and yet, I have no regrets, no nostalgia. The image and the achievement are divorced from the process that made it possible.

I took this one on one of the Medvednica peaks after we completed the hike to the top; Strmopeć, with Canon 5d and the EF 15mm f/2.8 diagonal fisheye, in 2010. The memory is very much alive, and that camera helped me not only make many great pictures, but also helped me learn completely new styles of photography, it completely pulled me out of my former habits. I let it go without regrets, because the achievement and the memories are detached from the actual physical camera that made them. There’s the idea of it, the feeling of it, but that feeling is me.

This was taken with my current camera, the Sony A7RV and the FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM lens. I love both the camera and the lens, but the idea about them is very different from the physical object on my desk. The idea about the camera are the moments when I took the pictures like this one, and I’m there, in that moment, in the golden part of the sunset at Plitvička Jezera, atop the mound overseeing the lake. Sure, I know I had the camera and the lens with me, but the idea about the camera in my mind is what it helped me make. It’s not the physical object, or connected to the ownership thereof. They are always with me, even if the physical object that made them was lost to the sands of time.

That’s what makes photography different – it’s not a gear acquisition thing, although acquisition of gear makes it possible. The good part doesn’t start when I click “buy” or when the courier delivers it, or when I unpack it. It starts when I make the first good photo with it, and it doesn’t fade when the novelty expires. It stays with me forever.