Where do I go?

Mick

 

Fair enough. One really does have to handle cameras to see whether you like them or not. .... I would like to try the R5 with the 28-70 f2. That would be a fun, if heavy combination.

 

Great discussion Robin. One last note. I always add the battery grip which makes my camera body bigger and heavier.

One really does have to handle cameras to see whether you like them or not.

 

I completely agree. It's true even within a brand, as you said. Many years ago, when I upgraded from my first Rebel to a 50D, the biggest difference for me was the ergnomics. Another big issue for me is the menu system. Canon's have always been good (IMHO), and they have gotten progressively better through the numerous Canon bodies I've had. The system in my current main camera, a 5 D IV, is very intuitive and easy to use. And, of course, the camera is highly customizable.

 

At my age, however, there's a tradeoff between big hands and weight. My gear seems to get heavier every year. I did some arithmetic to find out how much weight I'd cut by splurging and going with an R5. The answer is not much, particularly if I keep my EF glass, which I would--most of mine is superb and in mint condition. The way to save serious weight when switching to mirrorless is to switch at the same time to a smaller sensor, which I'm not ready to do.

 

This is one reason I never use a battery grip. For my use, it's just dead weight. I don't find the portrait orientation awkward without a grip, and while I almost always carry a second battery, the fact is that I very rarely need it, if I remember to charge before I start a shoot. However, I do keep an L-bracket on the camera most of the time, and that adds about 4 oz (100g).

I completely agree. It's true even within a brand, as you said. Many years ago, when I upgraded from my first Rebel to a 50D, the biggest difference for me was the ergnomics. Another big issue for me is the menu system. Canon's have always been good (IMHO), and they have gotten progressively better through the numerous Canon bodies I've had. The system in my current main camera, a 5 D IV, is very intuitive and easy to use. And, of course, the camera is highly customizable.

 

At my age, however, there's a tradeoff between big hands and weight. My gear seems to get heavier every year. I did some arithmetic to find out how much weight I'd cut by splurging and going with an R5. The answer is not much, particularly if I keep my EF glass, which I would--most of mine is superb and in mint condition. The way to save serious weight when switching to mirrorless is to switch at the same time to a smaller sensor, which I'm not ready to do.

 

This is one reason I never use a battery grip. For my use, it's just dead weight. I don't find the portrait orientation awkward without a grip, and while I almost always carry a second battery, the fact is that I very rarely need it, if I remember to charge before I start a shoot. However, I do keep an L-bracket on the camera most of the time, and that adds about 4 oz (100g).

 

There is a hidden weight and hassle factor when you switch to mirrorless. That is the battery.

On my dSLR (Nikon D7200), I can shoot all weekend on a SINGLE charge. I have NEVER needed to use my spare battery, and I my shutter count is over 100,000.

On my mirrorless (Olympus EM1-mk2), I can shoot no longer than 4 hours (power continuously ON). This means two things; 1) I have to carry FOUR batteries, to get me though a FULL day of shooting, and 2) I have to plan my battery change, so that I don't lose power in the middle of an action/event. Plus, I need a 2nd charger, and have to charge in two shifts. If I want to charge in one shift, I would need FOUR chargers.

My experience is that battery life on a mirrorless seems to be directly related to the power ON time, not the number of shots taken (as it is with a dSLR).

I don't know the run time of the Nikon Z, Canon R, or Sony cameras.

 

Yes, one of the problems with mirrorless, is that the FF lenses are generally no smaller than those for a FF dSLR. And the lens is a significant percentage of the total weight.

 

The standard problem with going from FF down to APS-C is the lens. The APS-C lens landscape for GOOD lenses has historically been POOR. So you are back to using FF lenses, that don't quite match the sensor format.

 

If you go to a smaller sensor, the key is to, NOT cripple the migration.

IOW, use GOOD/PRO grade lenses, not the lower quality consumer grade lenses.

I completely agree. It's true even within a brand, as you said. Many years ago, when I upgraded from my first Rebel to a 50D, the biggest difference for me was the ergnomics....

 

This is one reason I never use a battery grip. For my use, it's just dead weight. I don't find the portrait orientation awkward without a grip, and while I almost always carry a second battery, the fact is that I very rarely need it, if I remember to charge before I start a shoot. However, I do keep an L-bracket on the camera most of the time, and that adds about 4 oz (100g).

 

There is no disputing the weight issue as it impacts many photographers. I find that the lenses - especially the telephotos - can be more of a weight issue but I've never calculated the weight of my camera with and without the grip. I do find myself using the portrait controls on the battery grip most of the time; however, sometimes my fingers "forget" to move off of the horizontal controls.

There is a hidden weight and hassle factor when you switch to mirrorless. That is the battery.

...

 

Yes, one of the problems with mirrorless, is that the FF lenses are generally no smaller than those for a FF dSLR. And the lens is a significant percentage of the total weight.

 

The standard problem with going from FF down to APS-C is the lens. The APS-C lens landscape for GOOD lenses has historically been POOR. So you are back to using FF lenses, that don't quite match the sensor format.

Example, if you want an APS-C equivalent of the classic FF 70-200/2.8, there is none by Nikon, Canon and the 3rd party lens makers.

Currently, the closest is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4. The Sigma 50-150/2.8 is long out of production, and a HEAVY lens.

I use a Nikon 70-200/4 on my APS-C, D7200. The Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 was not available at the time.

 

If you go to a smaller sensor, the key is to, NOT cripple the migration.

IOW, use GOOD/PRO grade lenses, not the lower quality consumer grade lenses.

 

I agree completely. Mirrorless eats batteries up quickly necessitating spares for extended shooting. Aren't the mirrorless lenses heavier than the DSLR lenses?

I agree completely. Mirrorless eats batteries up quickly necessitating spares for extended shooting. Aren't the mirrorless lenses heavier than the DSLR lenses?

 

The mfg are taking this opportunity to redesign the lenses, so the weight can go up or down.

I have not done a table comparison, but I think some are and some are not.

 

So presuming the SAME optical formula, they would be longer, simply because of the thinner mirrorless body. The reduced flange to sensor distance is now added to the length of the lens.

I rarely get through more than 2 fully charged battery per day with the Olympus. In fact I have never run out, and I only carry 3 batteries. If you use the LCD a lot then you will run into drain issues, but I generally don't do much chimping or sorting in camera, so rarely use the screen. Another way to save power I find is to switch the camera off rather than let it power down. Starting up from off is the perhaps a little quicker vs sleep/power off too. I can shoot for days with the DSLR though.

given that Mickey is looking at Canon, and that's what I shoot, I looked up some numbers. The difference is slightly bigger than I remembered because I was comparing one body without a battery to another one with a battery. Here are the numbers:

 

24-105: EF 795g, RF 700g

 

70-200 f/2.8: EF 1480g, RF 1070g

 

70-200 f/4: EF 780g, RF 695g

 

However, the latter is a little misleading. All of the EF lenses are internally focusing. The RF 70-200 f/2.8 is externally focusing (that is, it extends and retracts). That's a total redesign, so the EF/RF comparison is in some ways misleading.

 

Bodies (including battery and card):

 

R5: 738g

 

5D Mark IV: 890g

 

The BG-R10 grip with two batteries should add about 500g, assuming the specs for the grip (351g) doesn't include batteries. But if the greater power drain of the mirrorless entails brining one more battery along without the grip, that would be roughtly 425g.

 

So for me, not for Mickey: I often walk around with the body and a 24-105. My second most common lens is the 70-200 f/4. So, the difference in weight between 5D and R5 is noticable but not all that large--smaller by about 75g if the R5 requires one more battery.

I did not realize the RF 70-200/2.8 was that light. :)

 

What bugs me about the RF 70-200/2.8 is that it is an extending design.

When you zoom, the lens extends. In my experience, that generally makes the zoom ring stiffer to turn, because you have to move all that extending mass, rather than the small internal mass of an internal zoom. Couple that with a 90 degree or less throw of the zoom ring, where you are fighting leverage.

But I would like to actually try it in my hands, to see how good a job the Canon engineers did on the zoom mechanism.

When you zoom, the lens extends.

 

Yes, sorry, what I wrote is not correct. The issue is the extension when zooming, not focusing.

 

I also prefer internal zooms. My EF 70-200 f/4 has a very nice, easy rotation. I also have two lenses that extend when zoomed. With the relatively light EF-24-105 II, I don't really notice it in practice. I do notice it sometimes with the EF 100-400, which weighs 1640g.

 

For me personally, the only relevant number in making a choice was the body weight. My EF lenses are in superb condition, and two of them are very new. I would end up using them with an adapter (more weight), not selling them at a loss and replacing them with RF lenses, which also cost more to begin with.

 

In the end, while I'd be delighted if some good-hearted soul gave me one, switching to an R5 didn't offer me enough personally, compared with a 5D IV, to make it work the $$. The one feature I really do miss is the better AF, specifically eye-AF. I do a lot of candids of kids, and that would be very helpful. I think that would make a real difference in my keeper rate.

Another issue with both the RF Canon 70-20mms is that neither can take a teleconverter. This is definitely a strike against them.