Canon EOS 5D III vs Sony Alpha II

Decisions, decisions… They’re tough if you’re upgrading to a full-frame camera. Chances are you’ll need to buy at least a couple of new lenses as well, so there’s the added temptation of switching to a different brand, or even to a completely different ty

A top-rated SLR meets a world-beating CSC – which is better?

Sensor-based autofocus systems can be slow, but Sony claims a 30% increase in autofocus speed over the original A7

Should you ‘stick’ with tradition and settle on the somewhat antiquated design of an SLR, or ‘twist’ with a more revolutionary mirrorless compact system

camera? There are highly attractive ‘all-rounders’ in both camps: cameras that don’t go overboard on megapixel count, yet aim to take everything from portraiture to landscape photography in their stride. Two of our current favourites are the Canon 5D Mk III SLR, and the mirrorless Sony A7 II from Sony’s ‘ILC’ (interchangeable-lens camera) stable.

A major factor in choosing any ‘system’ camera is the depth and breadth of the system itself. You’re spoiled for choice when it comes to lenses and other accessories for the long-established line of Canon SLRs. Sony’s mirrorless cameras are a much newer proposition, especially when it comes to full-frame models, but the range of compatible E-mount lenses has grown over the last couple of years, and an adaptor is also available for fitting A-mount lenses.

Features

Billed by Canon as a professional-grade camera, the 5D Mk III has an exotic feature set. Highlights include a 61-point autofocus module with 41 cross-type points and five double-cross points, 63-zone metering, and a working range of -2EV to 18EV. The 22.3 megapixelcount of the image sensor is modest by the latest standards, but it helps to enable an enormous sensitivity range of ISO 100-25,600 (50-102,400 expanded). The viewfinder is a high-quality pentaprism unit that gives a bright and super-sharp display, with 100% frame coverage.

For its part, the Sony has a hybrid phase/contrast autofocus system with 117 active points on the image sensor. Without a reflex mirror, there’s no facility for having a separate autofocus module. Sensor-based autofocus systems can be slow, but Sony claims a 30% increase in autofocus speed for its hybrid system over the original A7, and a 50% improvement in AF tracking performance.

The sensitivity range for autofocus is -1EV to 20EV, so it loses out for extremely low-light focusing to the Canon. There’s a 1,200-zone metering system, again taken directly from the image sensor rather than the separate module featured in SLR cameras. The sensitivity range is generous at ISO 50-25,600, but lacks the Canon’s expanded range.

With no reflex mirror, the Sony naturally can’t have an optical viewfinder but, while some CSCs (compact system cameras) omit a viewfinder altogether, the Sony has a built-in EVF (electronic viewfinder). This boasts a huge image resolution of 2,359,000 dots and, like the Canon’s optical unit, gives 100% frame coverage.

One feature that’s always welcome for handheld photography is image stabilisation. Canon has never produced a full-frame SLR with built-in, sensorshift stabilisation, and the 5D Mk III is no exception. If you want stabilisation, you have to fit a lens that includes an optical stabiliser. Canon makes many of these, as do Sigma and Tamron. Taking the opposite path, the A7 II was the world’s first full-frame camera to feature sensor-shift stabilisation. It’s a highly advanced five-axis design that features correction not only in the X and Y planes, but also for pitch, yaw and roll.

The A7 II is well connected with Wi-Fi and NFC (Near Field Communication)

built in, while the 5D Mk III has neither. Strangely the A7 II lacks a standalone battery charger. Instead, you have to connect to the whole camera to the charger via its USB socket. This makes life awkward if you want to recharge a battery while you carry on shooting with a spare. At least a self-contained battery charger is available as an optional extra. Battery life itself is poor at 350 shots between recharges, though, compared with the Canon’s 950 shots.

Build & handling Put the A7 II and the 5D Mk III next to each other, and it’s like the Little and Large show. The Canon appears to dwarf the Sony, but specifications reveal that it’s actually only 16mm deeper. This is mostly due to the Sony’s protruding viewfinder and finger grip, either side of its svelte and slim-line body. At 950g compared with 599g, the Canon is also more than 50% heavier.

The build of both cameras is largely based on magnesium alloy to keep weight down and strength up. Weather seals are plentiful and, when it comes to dials, buttons and switches, both cameras show a similarly high standard of quality.

Considering the Sony was only launched in 2015 and that it’s three years newer than the Canon, it’s surprising that the build doesn’t include a touchscreen. However, the screen does have a tilt mechanism, which is lacking on the Canon. Up on top, the Canon features a secondary mono LCD display, but this is omitted on the Sony – no surprise, given that there’s no room for one.

Canon has been making SLR cameras since 1959, so it’s had plenty of time to sort out handling. The relatively large body enables plenty of room for dials and buttons without it feeling cramped. In fact, the physical size and weight make for comfortable handling and great balance when using chunky full-frame lenses. The provision and placement of the shooting mode dial with its three custom settings, the strips of buttons along the top right and rear left, and the joystick-like multi-controller and rotary quick control dial, all make for easy control. The ‘Quick’ menu is similarly intuitive and a delight to use.

It’s great having a ‘small’ camera when you’re traipsing around streets, trekking into the hills or jetting off to the other side of the world. However, handling can often feel compromised. Balance can feel front-heavy when using large lenses, while grip areas can feel inadequate, failing to inspire confidence and steadiness. Similarly, with less room to play with, you’ll often find that buttons and dials for important shooting settings are fiddly or get nudged accidentally when you’re holding the camera.

The Sony strikes a good balance, managing to pack in lots of control buttons and dials, while still leaving room for a comfortable grip. Better still, while we’ve criticised Sony SLRs of old in the past for having meagre customisation options, the A7 II has a wealth of customisable buttons, menus and settings to suit the way you shoot.

The Canon’s physical size and weight make for comfortable handling and great balance when using full-frame lenses

One niggle with the Sony is that it’s easy to turn the exposure compensation dial accidentally with your right thumb, applying bias unintentionally when you don’t want to. Then again, some people make the same complaint about the Canon’s rotary quick control dial, but at least that has a lock lever to disable action.

Performance Out and about with the Sony, its SteadyShot stabilisation system pays dividends with a claimed 4.5-stop benefit in beating camera-shake. It actually turned out to be about four stops in our tests, but that equals or beats most in-lens optical stabilisers. Optical stabilisation tends to be better for telephoto shooting but a neat trick from the Sony is that, if you fit a stabilised lens to the camera, the system can automatically choose which to use for better performance.

As claimed, the Sony’s autofocus is noticeably quicker than in the original A7, but the Canon still has the edge, at least when fitted with a lens that has a fast, ring-type ultrasonic system. It’s the same story for continuous autofocus, where the Canon reigns supreme in its ability to stay locked on moving objects. This makes the Canon preferable for sports and wildlife photos. Another performance boost is that the Canon has a maximum continuous drive rate of 6fps compared with the Sony’s 5fps.

The Canon’s evaluative metering mode is quite strongly biased to the active focus point (or points) that achieve autofocus but, even so, results are more predictable than from the Sony. In our tests, the Sony frequently blew highlights while trying to boost the brightness of shadowy areas in high-contrast scenes.

The actual amount of dynamic range is similar from both cameras but, when switched on, Canon’s Auto Lighting Optimizer is a little more effective than Sony’s D-Range Optimizer. When it comes to raw headroom for reclaiming highlights that are lost in JPEGs, both cameras have an impressive latitude.

Colour rendition tends to be a little warmer from the Canon, delivering

richer and more flattering skin tones, as well as adding a touch of gold to landscapes. The flip side is that, when using auto white balance, the Sony is technically a bit more accurate.

For low-light shooting, both cameras do well to suppress noise at low to medium sensitivity settings. However, the Canon eases ahead at ISO 1,600 and beyond, giving cleaner-looking images that retain greater fine detail and texture.

One key aspect of performance that needs consideration is the viewfinder. The Sony’s viewfinder is excellent for an electronic module, but doesn’t compare well with the Canon’s optical one. The Canon’s viewfinder makes it easier to see even the smallest details, especially in very bright or dark areas of a highcontrast scene.

The Sony’s EVF takes a ‘what you see is what you get’ approach to exposure settings and the application of exposure compensation. To see this on the Canon, or any other SLR, you need to switch to Live View and use the rear screen.

The Sony’s viewfinder is excellent for an electronic module but, compared to the Canon’s optical one, it’s relatively poor