>>3984855This.
>>3984868>The low light functionality Low light is a meme. Pretty much all FF sensors made in roughly the same time period have the same high ISO capability (viewed at the same size). And by "roughly" I mean anything made in the last 7-8 years. The problem is that you're using a 14yo camera. Your 5D2 is FF but has the noise performance of today's APS-C. You're looking at ~1ev gain by going with a newer FF body, any manufacturer. (Except the A72, skip that body.)
>and the extended dynamic range of the Sony Also a meme. Most currently shipping FF are going to be about the same here (5D4, R, R6, R5, Nikon mirrorless, Sony mirrorless). Again, you are using a 14yo camera.
I don't care which system you go with, but don't blame Canon because you're using something built when George W. Bush was still president. Nothing made at that time had the dynamic range or high ISO of today's sensors. The first Exmor sensor bodies were released sometime around 2010, and the DR legend, the D800, was 2012. Canon got the "bad DR" reputation because the 5D3 was the main competitor to the D800 and the gap there was large due to banding.
>>3984873>DESU, a Canon 6D II could be an intermediate fix, a Canon RP if the missing first curtain is no problem with strobes.If he's complaining about DR these are the two Canon bodies he would want to avoid. Their only improvement on the 5D2/5D3 was banding control. They don't have that much shadow push compared to newer sensors. That said, in the grand scheme of things you can actually capture a lot if you ETTR with those bodies.
If he's renting a 5D mark IV I don't know why he isn't just buying one. If he's having DR problems with a 5D4 he will have DR problems on Sony, i.e. it's an exposure/processing problem.
