What's new

Anyone gone mirrorless? (1 Viewer)

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
17,167
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
A shot of our grand nephew with my new Canon EOS R and EF 50L lens (via the EF to RF lens adapter). I'm really pleased with the camera so far. It handles my EF lenses as if they are native to the body, auto focus performance is excellent, and the images need very little work in post processing. My 50L lens has never performed so well.

MK6A0050-X4.jpg
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,442
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
The new Nikon Z 70-200 f/2.8 VR S looks enticing... but... I can’t see myself spending that much on it for a small mirrorless body and then not also be able to use it on any Nikon DSLRs like my D800.

I think if I spend that much at this point, I’d wanna be able to use it on my D800 too.

OTOH, if they would give us a Z 70-200 or (especially) 70-300 f/4 VR S for say 1/2 that price, I’m there!

_Man_
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
17,167
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
The new Nikon Z 70-200 f/2.8 VR S looks enticing... but... I can’t see myself spending that much on it for a small mirrorless body and then not also be able to use it on any Nikon DSLRs like my D800.

I think if I spend that much at this point, I’d wanna be able to use it on my D800 too.

OTOH, if they would give us a Z 70-200 or (especially) 70-300 f/4 VR S for say 1/2 that price, I’m there!

_Man_


That's where I am at with telephoto lenses for my new Canon EOS R, too. As long as I own a Canon EF mount dSLR for use with my telephoto lenses, I really cannot consider upgrading my EF 70-200 f/4 IS or EF 100-400L lS lenses. I use those two lenses mostly with my Canon 7D2 dSLR, and only occasionally with my old Canon 5D3 full frame dSLR that is being replaced by the EOS R. For now, if I want to use one of the telephoto lenses on the EOS R, then I will just use the EF to RF adapter. There is absolutely no degradation in performance using EF lenses on the R vs. using them on a Canon EF mount body. The only downside is the adapter adds a little length to the lens -- it makes my EF 16-35mm f/4 IS lens look like a short telephoto. :laugh:

I don't plan on replacing the Canon 7D2 anytime soon. I like having a dedicated body for wildlife shooting, as it greatly reduces lens changes when out in the field shooting both wildlife and landscapes. Until Canon makes an affordable RF mount replacement for the 7D2, I will stick with what I have.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
17,167
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
The "announcement of development" of the Canon EOS R5 is interesting. <_<

But based on the specs I'm pretty sure it's going to be well outside of my budget. The R lenses certainly have been thus far.

I have the RF 24-105mmL f/4 IS and RF 35mm f/1.8 lenses, which compare favorably price-wise with their EF counterparts. There is also an RF 24-240mm variable max aperture lens, but I have never been a fan of super zoom lenses. Otherwise, you are correct regarding the current RF lens line-up - - the other lenses are very expensive. Supposedly, Canon has 9 new RF lens releases planned for 2020, including two teleconvertors and a 100-500mm f/5.6-7.1 lens. The other lenses are unknown at this time, but hopefully some are in the more affordable areas.

Personally, I would be happy with a replacement for my EF 16-35mmL f/4 IS and a more affordable 50mm offering -- the RF 50mmL f/1.2 is supposed to be incredible, but it's also $2,100. That's too rich for me. I would love a RF 50mm f/1.4 of similar quality to the RF 35mm I currently own. I could then sell my EF 50mmL f/1.2.

I cannot envision replacing my two EF telephoto lenses while I still own a 7D2 for wildlife. The only other lens I own is a Sigma 105mm macro, and I am perfectly happy using the EF to RF adapter for it, as that lens doesn't get much use.
 
Last edited:

Cameron Yee

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
12,640
Real Name
Cameron Yee
Next rumor in the mill is an R6 with 20MP and 4K video, which seems to be more within reach for me. I'm assuming this is the mirrorless successor to the 6D.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Supporter
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
15,522
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
the RF 50mmL f/1.2 is supposed to be incredible, but it's also $2,100. That's too rich for me.
I just have to ruminate on how absurd photography has gotten. I can't even begin to wrap my mind around the concept of a 50mm lens, any 50mm lens, that costs $2,100. The obsession with shallow depth of field is destroying creativity in photography.
 

Cameron Yee

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
12,640
Real Name
Cameron Yee
Yeah, it's strange for a 50mm, since it's not even considered a "portrait lens" where you would want that shallow a DOF. The other scenario I think a 50mm f/1.2 *might* have some benefit is concerts, but it seems a concert photographer would be more interested in low light ISO improvements in the cameras than having a lens with that big of an aperture.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Supporter
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
15,522
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Yeah, it's strange for a 50mm, since it's not even considered a "portrait lens" where you would want that shallow a DOF.
Which brings up another thing, and the final nail in a casket of my trying to help people. A guy was complaining that his Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 needed focus calibration. He posted a bunch of example photos, all of which appeared to have no focus problems. The problem was he was shooting tight faces at f/1.4, so he only had about 1/8" of depth. I commented that his focus appeared to be fine and what he needed to do was stop down a bit to get more depth of field. The guy kind of lost his mind, telling me that he didn't buy that lens to stop it down and he knew he could get the result he wanted wide open because he'd seen other examples with the same lens shot wide open with the results he wanted. Of course, those examples weren't such tight shots, so they had more depth due to the greater camera to subject distance. But, just try explaining that to someone with a lot of dollars and no sense, and zero desire to understand anything. The guy ended up trolling me so much, warning everyone I responded to that I didn't know what I was talking about, I eventually just left.

End rant.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,442
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Yeah, I can't even get myself to spend $600 on the Nikon Z/S f/1.8 version, but they have the even more absurd Noct 58 f/0.95 despite needing to come out w/ tons more Z/S glass... Granted, the FTZ adapter does work well and gives new life to some of their modern AFS glass (along w/ other 3rd party ones) while also extending compatibility to very old, manual glass (particularly the AIS stuff), but still... just seems silly considering they're fighting to recover marketshare from Sony...

Well, at least they did release a superb 24-70 f/4 to go w/ the Z bodies and even offered it bundled at fairly attractive price, which seems nearly perfect for me (short of a 24-105 or 24-120 at f/4 perhaps... though those would probably involve noticeable compromises)...

Also glad they made another significant firmware update for my Z6 (that I care about) though...

_Man_
 
Last edited:

Cameron Yee

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
12,640
Real Name
Cameron Yee
This reminds me of when I was looking at a family friend's wedding photos from the hired (notice I didn't say "professional") photographer. Broad daylight (granted, some were in the shade) and she was shooting at f/1.8 for everything, including the group photos. Metadata can be a dangerous thing. :D
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,442
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
This reminds me of when I was looking at a family friend's wedding photos from the hired (notice I didn't say "professional") photographer. Broad daylight (granted, some were in the shade) and she was shooting at f/1.8 for everything, including the group photos. Metadata can be a dangerous thing. :D

:popcorn:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Probably shouldn't laugh too hard... since it was your friends' wedding, heh...

Did they at least like (most of) the results? That's probably what matters most... as long as they don't plan to blow them up to be hung around the house... :P

_Man_
 

Cameron Yee

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
12,640
Real Name
Cameron Yee
It was a friend of my parents, actually, and I only saw the photos because they happened to be in one of the group shots. So I don't know how the couple felt about the results. They looked "fine" on the computer monitor but yeah, would not have held up to much enlargement.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
17,167
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Which brings up another thing, and the final nail in a casket of my trying to help people. A guy was complaining that his Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 needed focus calibration. He posted a bunch of example photos, all of which appeared to have no focus problems. The problem was he was shooting tight faces at f/1.4, so he only had about 1/8" of depth. I commented that his focus appeared to be fine and what he needed to do was stop down a bit to get more depth of field. The guy kind of lost his mind, telling me that he didn't buy that lens to stop it down and he knew he could get the result he wanted wide open because he'd seen other examples with the same lens shot wide open with the results he wanted. Of course, those examples weren't such tight shots, so they had more depth due to the greater camera to subject distance. But, just try explaining that to someone with a lot of dollars and no sense, and zero desire to understand anything. The guy ended up trolling me so much, warning everyone I responded to that I didn't know what I was talking about, I eventually just left.

End rant.
Yeah, some people insist on shooting wide open all the time with a fast lens. I never understood that mentality. I do not think I ever have shot my 50mm f/1.2 wide open -- other than just to test it out. The only reason I ended up with that lens is because Canon's f/1.8 and f/1.4 50mm lenses had major auto focus issues, and I really like that focal length for family events on a full frame body.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Supporter
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
15,522
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Yeah, some people insist on shooting wide open all the time with a fast lens. I never understood that mentality. I do not think I ever have shot my 50mm f/1.2 wide open -- other than just to test it out. The only reason I ended up with that lens is because Canon's f/1.8 and f/1.4 50mm lenses had major auto focus issues, and I really like that focal length for family events on a full frame body.
I ran into the same problem trying to help people with their sports photography. Again, I suggested not shooting everything wide open, in order to gain some wiggle room with focus. And again, I got trolled with comments like "So, you're saying Sports Illustrated photographers are doing it wrong?" When I tried to explain that Sports Illustrated photographers have the skill needed to do it that way, it was like opening a flood gate of hatred and trolling. Anyway, the result is the same. It's disheartening.
 

Cameron Yee

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
12,640
Real Name
Cameron Yee
So I'm calling an end to the grand experiment of using a Sony a7iii alongside a Canon DSLR. It was fun, but really more of a fling. I do want a mirrorless body, and enjoy that shooting experience with the options of eye AF and silent shutter, but now that Canon has several models forthcoming it seems like the right time to divest of the Sony gear before it depreciates further.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
17,167
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
So I'm calling an end to the grand experiment of using a Sony a7iii alongside a Canon DSLR. It was fun, but really more of a fling. I do want a mirrorless body, and enjoy that shooting experience with the options of eye AF and silent shutter, but now that Canon has several models forthcoming it seems like the right time to divest of the Sony gear before it depreciates further.

I think you'll like Canon's mirrorless line-up. They have really closed the gap with Sony in this marketplace. I really like both my EOS R full frame and EOS M50 APS-C sensor mirrorless bodies. The new RF mount lenses are quite good, too, although most are a little too expensive right now. I got a great deal on the RF 24-105mm f/4 IS L as part of the EOS R kit, and the RF 35mm f/1.8 is currently the least expensive lens in the lineup (I paid a little under $400 for mine). With the EF to RF adapter, though, my EF lenses function perfectly on the R body.

The new EOS R5 looks like it's going to be a fantastic body, but the price will probably be way more than I would spend -- I'm guessing close to $4,000 on release.
 

Cameron Yee

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
12,640
Real Name
Cameron Yee
Yeah, I'll probably be aiming for the EOS R6. 20MP seems small now, but that was the MP count of the 7Dii and I never had many occasions to complain.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
349,606
Messages
4,885,740
Members
142,631
Latest member
dennisgordan
Recent bookmarks
0
Top