For what it’s worth, here’s my two cents. I am transitioning to Sony because of their third party lenses that work “natively”. Nikon and Canon are locked down, so other lens companies have to reverse engineer their way into the system. Sony opened them up to third parties. The Tamron 2.8 zooms are lightweight, with image quality nearly on par with G Master lenses, for less than half the price. Also they have excellent wildlife zooms at a reasonable price like the 100-400 (could work great as a landscape tele), or the 200-600 (if you have an itch for wildlife/birding), which Canon doesn’t really have anything with that quality at the $2000-2500 range. The setup I’m building is the Sony f/4 16-35 (pz), the f/2.8 Tamron 28-75 G2, and the f/2.8 70-180. So much value and easy to carry. I think the variety of lenses and quality of 3rd party glass is compelling. Especially when Tamron and Sigma are providing excellent light-weight options. It’s literally half the weight and half the price of my old Nikon setup! Don’t think either system will let you down though. Might not be a bad idea to find a store and handle them in person. Comfort and ergonomics is underrated! More on reddit.com

honestly the menu thing becomes second nature after like a week or two of actually using it daily. i switched from canon to sony a few years back and yeah those menus are straight up confusing at first but once you customize them to your workflow its not even an issue that said if youre already deep in the canon ecosystem with lenses and accessories it might not be worth the switch unless youre really feeling limited by what youve got. the R6 mark 3 is solid and if you know canon inside and out that workflow efficiency is worth something but man that low light performance difference is real. if thats a big part of your work then it might be worth considering. what kind of documentary stuff are you shooting where low light matters most More on reddit.com

I suppose you are here not for a re-iteration of the spec sheet but a more subjective “human” analysis I have been using the Canon system since the film EOS3 days and then moved on to the 300D and 1D. Canon was a very innovative company back then, for example the early 300D was the best camera under $1000 period, and Canon’s sensor performance was miles ahead of anyone else. In 2012 Canon released the 6D. While the Nikon D600 was arguably better, the 6D was close enough. This was the first “affordable” full frame camera made by Canon at the $2000 mark. Prior to this, a full frame camera like the 1Ds cost $8000. As I often used just the center AF point even on the 1D, the 6D really was good enough for the kind of photography I was doing then. Sometime after this, Canon stupidly decided to cut R&D spending… Fast forward to late 2017 and Canon was releasing very disappointing cameras. The 6Dii actually had worse dynamic range than the 6Di, and there was almost no reason to upgrade from the 6D. In fact, the 6Dii did not compare very favorably to the Nikon D750, which released in 2014! In 2017, the Sony A7ii was also unattractive. AF performance was frankly still terrible and it hunted all the time In early 2018 Sony released the A7iii and once I saw the eye AF I immediately knew it was an absolute game changer. The AF on the A7iii while not perfect, was incomparably better than the A7ii. The existence of the Sigma MC-11 meant that could adapt all my Canon glass, so I picked up an A7iii over the 6Dii or 5Div Fast forward to 2021 and Canon finally has decent cameras again, the big boon for the Canon system is that the Canon EF mount adapter is essentially perfect. Existing EF mount lenses will pretty much work perfectly Unfortunately as a “complete package” there are problems… note: I strongly dislike lenses which barrel-extend due to past experiences with water vapor ingress even with plastic lens protectors For super telephotos: The Sony 200-600/6.3 is more attractive (to me) than the barrel extending Canon 100-500/7.1, and the Sony 200-600 is much cheaper too. The Sony 70-200/2.8ii is much more attractive than the canon variant because it’s so light, similar in weight to an 70-200/4. The Tamron 150-500/5-6.7 may be a good cheaper alternative, but there’s no RF version yet AFAIK The Canon 800/11 is quite interesting, but given the pricing I still rather get the brighter Sony 200-600 Overall: Sony Wins due to the 200-600 For wide primes: The Canon 35/1.8 is only average optically but at least it’s cheap Meanwhile the 35GM and 35/1.8G are fantastic optically, and the physical size and weight of the GM is great for a 35/1.4. Canon has no RF20mm or RF24mm prime at all so Sony wins by default. Both very good lenses on the Sony system RF16/2.8 is cheap but has strong distortion and CA. Sony 14GM beats it but the price bracket is completely different Overall: Sony Wins, not even close For portrait length primes: Both Canon and Sony have 50/1.2 lenses, optically both are very good and probably almost indistinguishable. If you want to nitpick Sony has better bokeh, quieter and faster autofocus, and less CA. (This is from research online) Canon has 2?! 85/1.2 lenses while Sony “only” has an 85/1.4. Sigma also has a very strong 85mm.. I don’t know enough about the Canon 85/1.2 to comment on the optical differences. Optically the 85/1.4GM is very good and my main quibble with it is the poor minimum focusing distance There is no RF135mm and the 135GM is absolutely fantastic, Sony wins by default Overall : Advantage Sony For wide and standard zooms: Sony 12-24/2.8 and 12-24/4: Canon doesn’t have a 12mm so Sony wins by default. I probably won’t buy a lens this wide so I don’t care Sony 16-35 f2.8 vs. Canon RF 15-35 ：Both should get the job done, neither really impress. The Sony is known to have allot of sample variation… The Canon is supposedly sharper in the corners and the Sony is supposedly sharper in the centre 24-70/2.8: I don’t know enough about the Canon but the Sony is only average in my book. The Sigma is also half the price and optically very decent. From Petapixel’s comparison they are optically similar enough https://petapixel.com/2020/01/13/mirrorless-24-70mm-shootout-which-lens-wins-in-sharpness-vs-expense/ 24-70/2 Very interesting lens from Canon, unfortunately it’s kinda soft wide open and very heavy and expensive. I’ll stick with the primes 24-105: not sure how they compare… For a budget 24-xx zoom I prefer the sigma 24-70/2.8 because it’s 2.8 Overall: Tie —————- Overall the Sony lens lineup is much more attractive (for me) the lack of wide RF primes is a very big deal breaker. Meanwhile the Sony wide primes are world class, especially the 35GM As far as the R6 and A7iv goes, the main advantage of the R6 is the 20fps burst. This could be a huge deal or completely unnecessary depending what you shoot. Unfortunately for the R6 “14 bit is only available with mechanical shutter and EFCS in single shots.” https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64849128 The A7iv wins on most other important points: video is much better and not limited to 30min 33 MP sensor 14 lossless raw possible with mechanical or electronic shutter, and possible in burst mode at approx 6fps or so at 10fps the viewfinder still updates. Only 8fps on canon Therefore… I’m sticking with Sony for another few years at least More on reddit.com

Both are great cameras for pics but some prefer the ergonomics of Canon, deeper grip, easier to hold. On the other hand, Sony offers more custom function buttons. These kind of little things must be also considered before deciding. If you decide to go with Sony, you can also use canon EF lenses on it with an adapter. More on reddit.com