Using EF Teles and Zooms on RP

Thinking about picking up an RP to play with. I've been shooting professionally for nearly 40 years (and w Canon....remember the Ftb?) and can see the new tech on the horizon. Just like I did with the D30 I need to start somewhere with new tech, camera layouts, EVF, etc. Currently, I use 7dII's and 5dMkIV's. So was wondering how the RP works with the adapter and longer lenses. In particular the 70-300L MkI / 300L f4 / 100-400L MkII. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks

Thinking about picking up an RP to play with. I've been shooting professionally for nearly 40 years (and w Canon....remember the Ftb?) and can see the new tech on the horizon. Just like I did with the D30 I need to start somewhere with new tech, camera layouts, EVF, etc. Currently, I use 7dII's and 5dMkIV's. So was wondering how the RP works with the adapter and longer lenses. In particular the 70-300L MkI / 300L f4 / 100-400L MkII. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks

Earlier this year I purchased a Canon EOS RP to replace my 200D as I wanted to restrict myself to FF cameras (film and digital). I have used the RP for bird photography with the Canon EF 400mm f5.6 and the Sigma 150-600 and I can honestly say I can see no difference in focus speed. I have been so pleased with it I am thinking of getting an R to replace my 5D3.

Thanks for the report. Going on safari in Oct for several weeks.

IF you shoot in difficult lighting conditions, I found the EVF to be very valuable. I can adjust the exposure and see the effect real time, BEFORE I press the shutter.

With the dSLR, I have to shoot, check the back screen (IF I can see it. Can't see the screen in the bright sun), adjust exposure, shoot, and repeat the cycle. More difficult to nail the exposure.

 

For FAST action, some/many EVF are not up to following the fast action, and the Optical VF on the dSLR is just easier to use.

There is a tiny electrical lag, that can be just long enough to mess up following FAST action.

If you don't shoot FAST action, this is a non-issue.

 

Autofocus on mirrorless for fast action, is a 'work in progress.' They are getting better, and can be and has been updated via a Firmware update.

 

Mirrorless battery life stinks, in comparison to a dSLR. This is under heavy use.

When you are used to shooting all weekend on a single battery with a dSLR, with a mirrorless you end up needing 2 to 4+ batteries a day. And you have to charge all those batteries at the end of the day, to have them ready for the next day.

Some batteries have 3rd party USB chargers, so you can charge from a USB power pack, during the day.

So battery logistics planning is important with a mirrorless.

I would give the camera + lens a HARD workout, to determine the run time.

EF and EFS lenses work fine on the older Canon M5 mirrorless

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

The present mirrorless cameras offer advantages and disadvantages over their DSLR equivalents. The RP uses the 6DII sensor. The electronic view finder has a short delay and so is not as well suited to photoing faster action such as birds in flight. It is perfectly good for still and slower stuff. Another advantage is that the AF system is off the sensor and so AF is particularly accurate and does not require micro adjusting of any AF lens. IS lens remain switched on as long as the camera is switched on, IS does not shut down after taking the shot as on DSLRs. Those that have purchased R and RP cameras seem very happy with them except for a few people who keep both eyes open when shooting find the viewfinder delay causing unpleasant side effects.

Gary;

 

One of the best comments on "mirrorless" vs "DSLR" that I have seen. All the reviews I find on the net ->especially the videos are complete biased rubbish..

 

 

I might be inclined to try a mirrorless; but I am balking at using a mirrorless camera with adapters and my existing lenses. Silly - > I know.

For me, getting a M6 could be very easy - - > but the EF-M zoom lenses are just too slow. Putting a 24-105/4 with an adapter on a M6 sounds. . . wrong.

The RP / R - - -> bit more of a stretch. . and the R lenses are simply. . . isn't a selling point of mirrorless supposed to be smaller and cheaper???? I guess this is why they include the EF adapter with the RP.

[uSER=644327]@jim_larson|1[/uSER]

I am not keen on the Canon M6 for one reason, the EVF is not integrated into the camera.

The camera looks like a P&S, with the primary viewing with the back screen. IOW designed for the P&S and cell-phone people.

The EVF is an add-on that you attach to the top of the camera. That design IMHO is a broken EVF/camera just waiting to happen.

 

In the old Nikon 1 system, the V2 camera had an integrated EVF, then Nikon did just that with the V3; back screen with an add-on EVF. For me that killed the V3, as a camera that I would buy.

 

As for mirrorless being smaller and cheaper.

Some people may say that, and others may think that. But it is more complex.

IF you drop down in format to m4/3 or 1-inch, then yes it will be smaller.

IF you use NON-pro level lens, then the lenses will be small and cheaper than FF pro lenses.

 

A FF mirrorless camera may be smaller and lighter than a FF dSLR.

 

But FF is FF, and the lenses will not be any different in size, if you stay with the fast pro lenses.

 

The other way to go smaller is to use a smaller sensor.

So by going down in sensor size, we need to use a shorter and smaller lens.

 

The above ignores the effect of company/lens designers. If they use bulky metal barrels, like the Olympus Pro m4/3 lenses, the smaller format lens will not be as small and light as it could be.

 

And cheaper is only if you do NOT get a PRO grade lens.

 

Olympus has a smaller/lighter/lower price "consumer" line and a bigger/heavier/higher price Pro line.

So you can go either way.

Well, yes to everything you said.

 

***warning***

***Internet Troll Rant Follows***

 

**EVF Rant**

To me, I am simply not getting the EVF. I am replacing a simple mirror with a screen? That doesn't sound like it improves camera handling. What's the benefit?

The only one I read about is that since it gives exposure simulation -> it reduces chimping.

After two shots - - I don't need to check exposure again. Focus and composition are other stories. Half the time when I chimp, I am looking for closed eyes. EVF won't show that.

 

The M6 II EVF uses the hotshoe. Removable. I can buy into that. Although - I do like external flash units.

 

I like using the back screen for composition and focusing. I use it on my 80D - - > in a number of cases, it really helps composition; especially for Macro situations. But I have found "live view" laggy compared to using the viewfinder for action situations. It has caused me to miss shots - - -> which is defeating the whole point of the camera system.

 

A key question is if that lagginess is resolved on the new mirrorless cameras.

 

**Lens Rant**

Regarding lenses - - - yes. I get it. APS-C should be smaller.

Slapping a full frame 16-35/2.8 on the front of a M6 II is madness.

So I looked at the EF-M lens lineup. 15-45/3.5-6.3 6.3??? ALL the M zooms are slow.

I don't want that.

OK. . .in the days of ISO 6400 photography, I don't *need* F2.8; but at least offer a constant F4. With F6.3 on APS-C; maybe the Sony RX100 VII is not as bad as I think.

 

Now, the EF-M 32/1.4 sounds sweet. Need to read more about the quality of the "M" primes. From a cost standpoint - A 32/1.4 on a M6 *together* is still cheaper than 35/1.4-II EF lens. ALTHOUGH - - if a goal is "small, light, agile"; building a prime kit is not the way. (been there. . .)

 

Moving to the "R" system. .. .well. . . simply put: I am priced out of that market.. I could have jumped if they used the EF mount - -> but I am not an "adapter" guy. With "R" lenses generally at $2300 a pop - - > now we are starting to talk real money. Frankly, they lost me when all the "L" lens upgrades seemed to jump $500 a few years back.

 

*****

SO - - where am I going with this venting?

Venting is the point.

 

*****

 

I want to buy into the hype. I have some coin jangling in my pocket. . . . .

. . . . . but the bottom line is that the "integrated EOS system" with EF lenses (and a smattering of EF-S for the crop boys) has been fractured into three lens lines as we move to the mirrorless market.

 

Jumping from a crop camera to FF always had an appeal - - -> just plunk down coin for a body and you have arrived. Now it's "Pony up for a whole new system!".

Well - - - if I am doing that. . . . Sony has nice new systems too.

 

The "M" system isn't pricey. . but the glass is simply not compelling.

 

Breaking into three lines really compromises the canon sales pitch.

I don't even want to buy another EF lens. . . . the universal MARKETING conclusion is the dSLR line is dead. Why buy more into that?

 

****

 

Ok rant complete.

I will spare you all my 1" sensor angst.

Wallet going back into my pocket - - - - -

 

- - - - - I'm going out with my rusty old stuff and take some pictures.

Jim,

On some mirrorless, you can switch the EVF to magnify, and it will magnify the viewed image.

But I can do that on the back screen of my D7200.

 

However unless I go under a jacket, I can't see much/any details on the back screen of ANY camera, when I'm out in the bright sun. That is where EVF wins. You can see it in the bright sun.

 

EVF has lag. I don't know if it is as bad as the "live view." And it probably differs among vendors and camera models.

I learned about EVF lag the hard way, when shooting sports. By the time I saw an event on the EVF, it was too late to shoot. I missed a LOT of sport shots that way. I have since learned to anticipate the event, and press the shutter earlier.

Thankfully this is no where as bad as the shutter lag on my P&S camera.

 

As for the M lenses, I agree.

That is the same rant I have with Nikon and Canon APS-C dSLR lenses. Most of the Nikon and Canon APS-C dSLR lenses are "day time" lenses. Go into a gym or shoot night sports, and the APS-C lens is too slow. To get a faster zoom, I had to get a FF lens for my APS-C dSLR. In fact I went to the 35 + 50/1.8 primes, because the APS-C zooms were too slow. That is except for the EXPENSIVE 17-55/2.8.

Gary;

 

Thanks for the feedback. You are confirming my suspicions that mirrorless just "isn't there yet". I appreciate the feedback.

 

I know about P&S lag. . . currently, I use a G7x II (1" sensor, F1.8 lens) as my P&S. That camera really serves well when I need to have a pocketable camera. Edge distortion is a bit intense; but overall it takes really nice pictures in most cases.

 

As for the Canon APS-C dSLR lenses. . . .the EF-S. . . Well, the truth is I try to ignore these lenses and only buy EF lenses. (no adapters needed!); with the exception of the 10-22/3.5-4.5 which is reasonably fast and until recently had no EF equivalent. Sure. . . .full frame "L" for an APS-C might be overkill, but I always figured that if I ever jumped to full frame; I wouldn't need to buy all new lenses. Didn't figure that the "next gen" mirrorless would use a different mount!

 

I have been shooting Canon for a while. I did go through a prime phase - - - I shot the 24/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8 for a number of years as my day kit. Good stuff! But finally recognized that the F4 zooms were quite good and much more convenient. I am thinking that going back to primes in a mirrorless camera is the "wrong direction".

 

In the interests of full disclosure: My better half also shoots Canon APS-C. She CHOSES EF-S glass because - - weight is a factor; and she is not the discriminating pixel peeper that I am. So therefore, I have shot a bunch of EF-S through the years, since effectively the EF-S gear becomes my "backup equipment" when travelling. EF-S isn't that bad for what it is. . .but when squinting, I do see the quality difference in the glass beyond the physical "this glass is slower" limitations. Enough so that EF-S wouldn't be my first choice for purchases.

 

When I eventually do go mirrorless, I don't have a problem with mounting an adaptor for special occasion lenses (like the 100-400; or a 85/1.8); but for the *everyday lens*, like a 16-35 or 24-105. . . those shouldn't need adaptors. . . . and in a native mount definitely shouldn't have "F6.3" on the long end. . . .(oh. . .and neither should it cost $2300!). Hence my rant above!

 

Have a good day!

Jim

I think you and I are in parallel tracks.

 

I shoot Nikon DX/APS-C, and was in a predicament, get better DX lens or go to FX/FF lenses, anticipating eventually going to FX/FF.

So I went into "analysis paralysis" and could not make up my mind on a couple of lenses. I finally made the decision and got the FX/FF 70-200/4, because there was no DX equivalent to the 70-200 FX/FF lens, which would be 45-135 / 2.8. While there have been several times where I miss the wider short end, I don't regret getting that lens. And the f/4 lens is MUCH easier for a senior citizen to shoot on a long 5 hour shoot (sequential football games), than the 2x heavier 70-200/2.8 lens.

 

THEN, instead of going going UP to FX/FF, I went in the other direction, DOWN to m4/3.

This was primarily to save weight and bulk. Getting older and with injuries, the heavy gear was getting harder to lug around.

 

Then I found out that the EVF of the Olympus EM1-mk1 just did NOT work for shooting FAST sports, so I am still using the D7200.

And Canon coming out with the 90D kinda reinforces that position, dSLRs for sports.

 

Canon and Nikon have to come out with more native standard lenses; 24-105 for canon and 24-120 for Nikon.

And I agree the f/4 lenses will help keep the gear affordable, to those like me who are not going to drop $2k+ per lens.

But it will take time for them to flesh in the mirrorless landscape.

 

I have taken a two-prong approach with my m4/3 kit.

I have the slower/smaller/lighter x-5.6 lens for travel, and the faster/larger/heavier f/2.8 and 4 for home based use.

Then depending on the shoot, I select the appropriate lens.

Indeed - - > we have much in common.

 

While I have a steady stream of spendable coin; I am not buying new bodies if there is no reasonable glass. I guess most people in that range don't pay attention to glass (just look at the reviews) SO - - > Out of the APS-C mirrorless world.

 

And I don't have so much money that I can blindingly buy *new* R glass (at a premium) that essentially duplicates existing EF glass.

 

I have now concluded that I am not in the target market - - sad but true - - - and I will probably bank the camera money this year.

 

I appreciate the sounding board.