There’s some photographic advice on the Internet that I would like to address.

The first one is that one should take a look at the focal length statistics for his pictures in Lightroom, for the last year or so, and see what focal lengths they are using the most, and then consider buying a prime lens in that focal length. So, essentially, if you see that you’re shooting your 24-105mm lens mostly at 35mm, getting a good 35mm prime might be a thing to do.

The corollary is that you should focus more on what you’re doing the most, and eventually sell the lenses you’re using the least.

I understand the logic behind the advice, but it’s somewhat akin to a minimalist advice that says you should get rid of your winter clothes because you haven’t been using them for almost nine months. Not the greatest idea ever. The fact that you’re using something rarely doesn’t mean you don’t need it. I made some of my best work with a fisheye and an ultrawide, and yet I barely used them at all in the last few years. Sure, if you look at the stats of my pictures in the last three years, almost none are made with a fisheye. Then again, if you look at the prints on the walls of my home, of five pictures in total, two were made with a diagonal fisheye. That’s 40%. It’s a huge percentage for something I use so sparingly. Obviously, it has a place in my kit; I use it rarely, but when I use it, I make a disproportional number of winners. Some lenses are of the kind that really require special circumstances, and if you overdo it, it becomes counterproductive. Not everything lends itself to fisheye or wide angle, or to macro, for that matter. I didn’t use the macro lens much in the recent years, because I overdid it before; however, when I used it, I made a disproportional number of good pictures with it.

Once-a-year lens.

Statistically, I use certain focal lengths infrequently, but I do want to have an excellent lens in that focal length for when I do want to use it. So, frequency of use or a number of pictures made with a certain lens doesn’t really say much. It can even lie. For instance, when I take pictures of insects, I need to use rapid shutter in order to catch them in motion properly. I also do that with a telephoto. As a result, there will be a disproportional number of telephoto shots with long focal lengths, which will overwhelm the stats, which don’t know it’s all one or two motives. What I know and Lightroom doesn’t, is that I actually use a telephoto rarely, but when I do, I use it in rapid fire mode and create a deluge of similar transitional shots.

So, my logic is that if I use a certain lens once in five years, but when I do it will be to make a unique shot on top of the island or a mountain, that is a lens I simply must have in my arsenal. Frequency of use doesn’t mean anything.

Also, the logic of “if you’re not using a certain lens much, why get the best lens of that type?” It’s because when I do use it, it needs to shine. I might not use the 50mm frequently, but when I do, I want to fall on my arse when I see the results in Lightroom.

The second thing I keep seeing is whether one should use zooms or primes. Personally, I have more primes than zooms and I use them more, but I think one should use the best lens for the job at hand. For instance, when I’m visiting Plitvička Jezera, I shoot zooms exclusively; mostly 24-105mm f/4, but also prominently the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. I actually don’t use the 24-105mm that much otherwise, but there, I wouldn’t be caught dead without it, because it’s so useful and appropriate for the location. I use it basically twice a year, but I would have to re-purchase it immediately if it were lost or broken. So, basically, I shoot mostly with primes but I find zooms to be essential. You need to be reasonable and practical about those things. If a pin hole in a sheet of paper worked best as a lens for some specific task, I’d have it in my arsenal.

Zoom zoom!

The third thing, and that one is really annoying, is that “real” or “serious” photographers use X, where X is either film, medium format, large format, Leica, rangefinder, Hasselblad or something else. Honestly, the easiest way to know a poseur and a wannabe is to check for such statements, because if their work spoke for itself, they wouldn’t have to augment it with statements about the technology they made it with. I’ve seen very good photographers use literally every kind of equipment under the sun, and I’ve seen incompetent people with more money than brains spew bullshit about special magical equipment more times than I care to remember. Just shut the fuck up with that bullshit. If you think a Leica or medium format will make you a “true photographer”, go ahead. I just don’t want to listen to that crap. Mystical properties of camera brands don’t have the power to make pictures good, unless the camera happens to be in the hands of a skilled artist. You’re not “serious” because you use a Nikon. Using Nikon makes you a Nikon user, not a serious photographer. Developing your style and art over years and decades makes you a serious photographer.

Taken with absolute shite.

Also, perspective is important. People have filled art galleries over decades with pictures taken with cameras and lenses that would be routinely called crap on dpreview and YouTube. You can take excellent pictures with lenses that are objectively not that great, if you know what you’re doing. Also, to quote Adams, there’s nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept. Let’s end at that.

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.