Fancy a change of equipment - Need advice
Currently, I have a Canon 5D Mk III along with the kit 24-105 L lens, and also the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.To try and cut a long story short, for the last few years I have only used it for holiday snaps, and even then, the 70-200 gets left at home. So it just seems a big camera to carry around especially when there are probably smaller and better options out there now. Also, when I look at images that come out of say the Sony camera's, they look so much better than the dull colours I seem to get. Maybe it is all about post though......or my photography skills  So, as the title suggests, I'm starting to consider my options.
I would also like to try my hand at filming a holiday rather than photographing it as well, and as far as I'm aware, the 5D doesn't keep autofocusing as you move the camera around.
Now, I know this is going to start as broad requirements, but its a starting place and they can be refined.
Full frame. I don't think I could go back to a crop.More size friendly than the 5D.If there is something much better than Canon out there, I will try not to be brand loyal. Cost of new lenses would need to be considered.On the subject of cost, I would part-ex or sell my current equipment, but I don't want to have to give up a kidney as well!Something that would be good to try and give film a go.I'll admit I haven't kept up with camera technology in the last few years, apart from knowing mirrorless is a thing, so, any advice would be greatly received  From what you've said I guess the Sony A7 would be the obvious choice - full-frame on a relatively compact body.
Playing devil's advocate though, I have to wonder, why are you so tied to full-frame? Surely there are loads of cameras that'll be fine for holiday snaps (based on my own definition of "holiday snaps", which could admittedly differ form yours), and video. Unless you're hoping new gear will revitalise your interest and get you taking considerably more pictures?
In which case film's maybe not the best idea either as the novelty can wear off pretty quickly (you'll probably end up having to digitise and edit anyway). Then again having the option film alongside digital can be a nice change once in a while. @273K Thanks for the reply. Apologies if you know, but when I say “film”, I mean video.
I guess going back to crop could be an option of all the factors align making it a better option than full frame. But as you hinted it, I would like to get back into photography other than just on holiday. What sort of holiday film? Using your phone might be an option, depending what you want?
5DM3 is a pretty capable video camera although does not have the face tracking that the M4 version has.Magic lattern might help too if you want experiment with it before you change. Do you post process the raw files from the Canon or are you using straight out of camera jpegs?Sony colour is generally regarded as a weak point and a strength for Canon cameras, I don't know how true that is in reality as I haven't used any recent Canons or the Sony A7 series.
In terms of size and weight savings none of the current full frame mirrorless options are much smaller or lighter in practice, the Canon EOS R is around 2/3 the weight of the 5D shaving 300g but the RF mount 24-150mm is almost identical in size and weight to the Canon 24-105mm.In practical terms I wouldn't say that's going to make a much more practical system if the bulk of the current system is off putting. FWIW. I spent quite a long time resisting shooting raw and editing everything as it’s time consuming- kidding myself I could get it all right in camera with the jpg.
Then I started doing some post processing in GIMP and quickly realised a few tweaks in curves dramaticallyimproved the pictures. Skip forward and I started shooting jpg and raw and editing in lightroom 6 (no subscription).
You can imho only get the exciting colourful images I was aspiring to with some post processing and to do that well you need to start with the raw file.
Maybe a better photographer can do it all in camera but not me 
If you haven’t played around then I’d strongly recommend installing some trials and playing with your favourite shots on a wet afternoon. I suspect you’ll be amazed at how a few tweaks make a big difference. I have a Sony A7 (full frame), A6000 (APS-C), Canon 6D and EOS R (full frame).
The A6000 is the smallest, lightest body but that becomes a disadvantage with most full frame lenses, they just make everything unbalanced and look ridiculous. It's nice and small though using the Sigma F2.8 E mount prime lenses (19mm, 30mm and 60mm) which give good results plus the excellent Canon 40mm pancake using a cheap mount adaptor. PQ is decent up to around 800 ISO, 1600 at a push (although I tend to try and keep it at 400 or lower). It's controls are frustrating in use, even more so if trying to balance a large FF lens.
My A7 is the original smaller version and is only a bit larger than the A6000. Much better controls though. Suffers the same disadvantage with FF lenses as the A6000. Using Canon adapted lenses the 40mm focuses OK, 16-35L, 70-200L F4 IS, and 100L macro don't and mostly require manual focus although focus peaking and viewfinder magnification makes this easy in good light conditions. I prefer using my Canon lenses on my 6D. Even with the battery grip adding size and weight the 6D handles better and strangely feels lighter as it is so much easy to hold with larger lenses.
The Sony kit 28-70mm lens is mediocre. If I want decent results I need to use the APS-C Sigma lenses which perform well but that means having just an APS-C 10MP crop from the 24Mp FF sensor. Not ideal. Or use Canon adapted lenses. Price of Sony lenses puts me off buying any of them and they would also be similar size and weight to the Canon adapted ones I'm using. Having two (or 3) different mount bodies I'm going to stay with Canon lenses as they can be mounted on Sony. Can't be done the other way around.
EOS R is smaller and lighter than the 6D (which is smaller and lighter than your 5DIII) and all my Canon lenses perform well with the bundled EF-R mount adaptor. In some ways even better as there is no need for micro focus adjust due to the focusing being done at the sensor level. The EOS R and 40mm pancake is a very nice small light carry around.
I find the EOS R to handle better than the A7 with full frame lenses. It's grip is much more comfortable to hold than that of the A7 where I will start to get discomfort after a couple of minutes. PQ is excellent and I can now use high ISO without qualms. With the 6D I didn't like much higher than 1600 or 3200 at a push. EOS R I'm happy with up to 12,800 and have got OK results with 40,000 ISO if changing the image size down to 1/2 or 1/3rd original size. The 30MP sensor helps to make it an easy decision as even at 1/2 size there are still a lot of pixels left.
Moving away from Canon to say Sony is going to require new lenses unless you are happy to put up with the potential limitations of using adapted lenses. Later A7 models have better auto focus with adapted lenses than the original A7 I've got but I don't think adapted will ever work as well as native. So you'd have to factor in the cost of switching everything over completely if going with just Sony and getting rid of Canon.That plus the price of the equivalent Sony lenses makes for a costly change.
In terms of cost from lowest to highest:
If you just want to give film (video) a go and dip your toe into the water while having a nice light kit to carry around I'd suggest something like the Sony A6300 or A6500models. The 6300 with kit lens was £400 in Black Friday last year (after a Sony cashback). The A6500 has IBIS which would be useful if video is going to be a large element of its use. The A6400, like the A6300, doesn't have IBIS but has better auto focus than the other two. The APS-C A6xxx models have the advantage of being able to give good results with the smaller and cheap (around £150) Sigma lenses which makes them a joy, rather than a chore, to carry around. Even my full kit of A6000, two Sigma lenses, 16-50mm kit lens and a Samyang 12mm lens isn't too heavy or bulky (around 2.5kg including the bag and a couple of spare batteries).
If you wanted to stay Canon and full frame I'd suggest the EOS R or at a push the EOS RP.
That suffers from using the 6DII sensor vs the EOS R's 5DIV sensor and only has a 2.4MP viewfinder vs the 3.69MP one in the R. Comparing the R one to the 2.4MP one in my A7 I'd say it's well worth going for the larger size. At grey prices the R is around £1549 at HDEW whereas the RP being newer still hasn't dropped much in price and is £1209 (close to its £1287 at amazon). I'd expect it to be below £1K by the summer.
EOS RP is the smallest lightest 'new' full frame body (485g with battery), only a bit heavier than my A7 (474g), and lighter than the current Sony A7III model (650g). The EOS R/RP have better video auto focus than your 5DIII but aren't up to the level of the current Sony full frame models. Also don't have IBIS but that's not so important if using IS lenses.
A smaller lighter option could be the EOS M models but unless you buy into their native lens range you'd suffer from the same problems I have with my A6000: small body, large lenses.
The EF-M adapter is much cheaper though than an EF-FE one for Sony.
The Sony A7III body is around the same price at grey prices as the EOS R but factor in having to buy an EF-FE adaptor (£200 to £400) if using Canon adapted lenses or the cost of switching your Canon lenses to Sony ones. The 28-70mm kit lens is rubbish and thus I couldn't recommend getting an A7III bundle which includes that. A7III would probably be better if you wanted to shoot a lot of 4K video. But if you wanted to be able to edit your films you'ld need a high spec PC with fast processor and a lot of RAM.
Whatever you go for handling the cameras and lenses you shortlist is essential. Better specs are of no use if the camera is too uncomfortable to hold and use easily.
If you want any more info I'd be happy to expand details on specific areas of interest. I always shoot raw as the results are so much better particularly with my Sony cameras. Their out of body .jpgs just don't compare to what can be produced with the raw files. With Canon I find the .jpgs better than the Sony ones but again they don't match with what can be done with the raw files in areas like highlight recovery and shadow handling.
I'm using Lightroom CC but with every release it gets slower and slower so am looking around for a replacement. Any suggestions? (without wishing to hijack the thread).
Couple Lightroom/Photoshop with the free Nik Collections plugins (Is it still possible to get the free download version of the Nik Collection?) and it's easy to get good results fairly quickly after you've done the initial adjustments in Lightroom. I wouldn't buy a Canon EOS R camera if the choice is primarily for video as that's a weak point compared to rivals since they can only do a crop video mode. Depends if video would be the main use of the camera. From what the OP said I don't think that is the case, more dipping a toe into the water and seeing if he can catch a crab...
And surely not a lot of real difference between A6xxx 1080p/4K video at 1.5x crop due to the APS-C sensor to EOS R 1.7x crop at 4K which also has the bonus of no crop 1080p i.e. 24mm on the A6xxx is 36mm equivalent in both 4K and 1080p, 24mm on the R is 24mm in 1080p and 40.8mm equivalent in 4K.
Obviously there are lots of other diferences but the crop factor isn't a major one imo.