Where do I go?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by mickeysimpson, Aug 10, 2021.

  1. OK, I’m looking for some good old honest feedback on a couple of alternative paths for moving forward with my Canon gear. I am an old codger so I’m not planning for a photography career, just fun learning and creating.

    The first path is to buy the Canon R5 with all future glass acquisitions from the RF family of lenses. I would also get the control ring adapter so that I could ease into new RF glass as my budget permits while continuing to use my EF series lenses. I would retain my 5DM3 as a backup body and use the lenses I currently have: 1) EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM; 2) EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM; 3) EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM; 4) EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This path would mean that any new RF glass I purchase would be restricted for use with the R5. This will also require an extra-large budget for this hobbyist aka enthusiast.

    The second plan is similar in that I would also buy the R5 and control ring adapter while retaining my trusty old 5DM3 and glass. Under this plan I would buy additional EF lenses which would let me use all my new and existing glass on both bodies.

    So what thoughts are out there regarding these two alternatives? Have I overlooked something or an enticing alternative?

    Mick
     
  2. Good luck, Mick. I'm jealous of your situation. You have a nice collection of EF lenses already but everything I've read about the RF lenses sounds great. I'm sure once you start using the R5 you may set the 5DM3 aside for emergencies. I'd say buy RF lenses unless you're thinking about getting something spectacular like the 17mm tilt/shift. Again, good luck!
     
  3. Path #1 leaning but I think you are thinking too much and too early. Buy one chunk at a time and plan one sane next step at a time.
    IDK what lenses you might consider "excitng". I'm new to EOS, just a 5D IV 70-200/2.8 IS (& 35-105/4.5-5.6 I never used yet). The SLR AF fails at 200mm below f4.5, so I do want a MILC for wide open portraits. I'd also like a 85mm.
    • EF f1.2 is unlike the R sluggishly focusing. Out!
    • EF f1.4 focuses swiftly and has IS. Tempting! Although the 5D might not handle it wide open.
    • R f1.2 demands IBIS bodies, no cheapo backup MILC for that one.
    • R f1.8 IS seems tempting
    Wides.
    Your 24-70 should play well with the R5's IBIS and become a walk around lens that way. 24-105 on 5D as backup? I'm not lusting after them, since no IS / not that sharp. I might end with the EF 35/2 IS, to become more low light capable than now with a Hexar on Leica. A 24/2.8 IS is also imaginable. I expect the SLR AF to handle them easily, so something long could stay on the R5. - Dunno what the R 35/1.8 might be offering. I'm too lazy to lug an f1.4 and without a studio job quite strictly IS / IBIS only.

    Really long.
    Not my serious interest. Tamron 150-600 vs. dim R prime?

    I'm currently quite comfortably just sitting on the fence. Not fully vaccinated yet, I am unlikely to encounter shootable people. But once I 'll hit a wall, I might jump to get the R5 or the rumored high res version or whatever.
     
  4. I have my eye on a couple of lenses in particular, but am leaning a bit to EF. I want a good 50mm, 85mm, the 100mm F2.8 macro, and I would really like a lens with a longer reach - dare I say the Sigma 150 - 600mm. This is clearly in option 2 for maximum flexibility. Still torn because I know the future is mirrorless.
     
  5. Hi Jochen.

    I currently use my 24-105 as my walk around lens on the 5DM3 and find that its pretty sharp - it's the knucklehead behind my camera that's not so sharp!. I use the 24-70 when I'm in lower light situations and don't need as much reach. I would like a good 50mm, 85mm, the 100mm F2.8 macro, and I would really like a lens with a longer reach - dare I say the Sigma 150 - 600mm. I rarely use my 70-200mm but have used it in some sports shots where I need to get a little closer such as track and cross country competitions. I love the 16-35 and use it mostly for landscape photography or indoors when i want to get a wider view.

    Budget wise I like option 2 and it gives my more flexibility. The question is, do I need the flexibility or should I bite the bullet with RF lenses as AJKOCU suggests?

    Still on the fence...

    Mick
     
  6. This is the issue with any system change, when the target system is still being built out.

    As I see it, one of the issue is lenses which are NOT yet available in the RF mount.
    You are FORCED to get the EF lenses. You have no choice.
    But if later a similar RF lens comes out, then what? Do you then buy the RF lens and replace the EF lens, or just keep using the EF lens?

    Another is you are talking about a mixed RF/EF camera system.
    So you are using and supporting TWO systems, EF (5D) and RF (R5).
    To minimize duplication and incompatibility, I would drop the EF camera (as soon as you can) and replace it with a RF camera. Then you are using ONE system, RF.

    I would do a blend, call it 1.5.
    Switch to the R5, buying new RF lenses.
    But for the lenses which are not available in RF, buy the EF lens (you have no choice).
    But hold off on these as long as possible, hoping that a similar RF lens is released. You need to study the lens roadmap.​
    The unknown is if/when the 3rd party lens companies (Sigma, Tamron, etc) will release RF lenses.

    As for a backup, I really see two options.
    1) Get a 2nd RF camera, and sell the 5D. Then you are on ONE system, and eliminate the limitation of the 5D and RF lenses.
    1.5) Plan to get a 2nd RF camera, soon, but use the 5D until then. This is a stop gap option, and my choice.
    2) Use the 5D as a backup camera, fully knowing that the lenses for that camera is limited to the EF lenses you have, and have to get because the RF lens in not yet available. IOW, it cannot backup with the RF lenses, because you can't put a RF lens on the 5D.
    Tied up in this is the question of WHEN to start selling the EF gear (to fund more RF gear)? Example, when you sell the 24-70, you no longer have that lens as a backup option with the 5D.​
     
  7. Hi Gary.

    Certainly, dealing with a single system moving forward makes a lot of sense and you nailed the issue; how best to navigate the transition to the RF system as lenses come to market. This is the crux I am contemplating as I weigh a full commitment to the RF system vis-à-vis the maximum flexibility of relying upon EF lenses for use with my 5DM3 and an R5. Oh, I left out that I still have some FD lenses that I really want to use with the R5 for fully manual work.

    I think that the biggest factor for me will be budget as the RF lenses are quite expensive. My wife may send me to the moon if I start buying all of this RF system equipment!

    You raise the notion of dropping my 5DM3 which I had not previously considered. I still have good flexibility with the R5 given that I can use my EF and FD glass with it. That may be a good way to move on. I will officially add plan 1.5 to my options.

    Mick
     
  8. Hi Mick! I’m on the same path as you, just quite a bit further on. I started my journey with the RP, and found it transformed my photography. Pin point autofocus, plus the ability to adjust exposure on the fly using the control mount adapter, as at that stage I had no RF mount lenses. I sold both my 6D Mark 2 and 70D, as for me the mirrorless experience was so much better. My wife still has her DSLR, an SL2, and when I use it very occasionally I often have to stop and think about what I want to do; I’d avoid a two system approach if I could.

    The RP has now been replaced by an R5, and I agree that - or the R6 - should be what you aim for. I wanted the higher MP, hence the R5. Looking at your lenses, we both have the 16-35 f4 L IS, which like all the EF lenses works flawlessly on the R mount. I gave my 24-105 to my son, as the RF version is clearly superior. However, the RF 24-240 is usually on my R5 as a walk around lens as there’s nothing in the EF line to match it, it’s remarkably good (if less so at the 24 end) and reasonably priced, too. I think you’d find the RF 70-200 f4 smaller, lighter and sharper than your EF version.

    So, I’d go for the body and then gradually replace your EF lenses if there seemed some real advantage: size and weight, or optical quality.

    Cheers - Peter
     
    ajkocu likes this.
  9. Hi Peter.

    Thank you for sharing your transition experience with me and all those thinking about the move to mirrorless. A couple of things you said mirror my DSLR experience.
    1) The EF16-35mm f4 L IS is a favorite lens of mine. I let a friend with an R6 use it and she was thrilled with the images.
    2) I’ll likely keep the EF24-105mm for a while to let me pick up some RF glass that covers different focal ranges than what I currently have.
    3) Dream lens list: I stated above that I would like to get a nice 85mm prime, the 100mm f2.8 macro, and the Sigma 150-600mm Sport. I also listed 50mm, but have come around to think that the 85mm would be better suited for me. I also have 4 or 5 FD lenses one being a sweet 50mm f1.4. I plan to use the FD lenses with the R5 for full on manual shooting.
    4) I have also been reading about the RF24-240 and considering it as a walk around lens. I can part with the 24-105mm lens if I get this lens.
    5) I am also interested in the control ring function too and will read a bit more about that.

    So the actual transition will be driven largely by budget at first and expand as the RF lenses are introduced. More importantly when Mrs. Simpson lets me spend some cash. Nobody messes with Mrs. Simpson!

    First order of business will be the R5, the battery grip; the Control ring EF-EOS R adapter, an FD to RF adapter; and one lens.

    The 5DM3 may end up going to one of my grandchildren.

    Thanks, and best wishes to you and your family Peter.
     
  10. I didn't realize you could get an FD to RF adapter. That's fantastic! I don't have any really good FD lenses, though.
     
  11. I saw several FD-RF adapters on the internet using a simple search "Canon FD to RF lens adapters" I'll check them out more thoroughly as I get my R5. FD lenses will require manual control of aperture or focus.
     
  12. Hi Mick, I went through this transition last December, but it didn't quite go as expected. My plan was to get the R5 at first but then I decided that I didn't need the 45mp and I most certainly was not going to use the 8k video as I don't shoot video with my camera (I don't even use the impressive 4K on the R6!), so it didn't make sense to pay for what I didn't need or use. I fully understand those who want the higher megapixel count though; it allows for much greater cropping ability and the 1.6 crop mode on the R5 is close to the resolution on my 7D2 (17-ish mp vs about 8 on the R6), but I just don't need it. In the final though, the R6 was the perfect choice for me. You will be very happy with the R5, I'm sure. I had originally planned to keep my EF 24-104L but I got the RF 24-105L as a kit with the R6 and I love it to pieces. I also got the EF-RF Control Ring adapter and it allows me to use my EF lenses with absolutely no degradation in performance except that the frame rate with my 100-400L is only about 8fps when using the mechanical shutter instead of the 12fps; a not-so-subtle way to get me to buy the RF 100-500L! When using the electronic shutter though, it fires at 20fps regardless of which lens is being used. The RF 24-105L is much more compact on the R5/R6 than the EF with the adapter, so that's something to consider. I must say though that the adapter is simply amazing and it allows one to use their current crop of EF lenses without dropping a fortune on the new RF lenses, because many of them are very expensive! Having said all that, peter_c/5 mentioned the 24-240mm, and I have to admit that recently, that's the lens that I find myself using probably more than any other, just because it's the perfect walk-around lens and it performs very nicely! It's almost a good reason by itself to get into the RF system! So, if I were to offer my 2 cents, I would say to get the body and whichever RF lens you think you'd use the most, but also get the EF-RF Control Ring adapter and keep putting your EF lenses to good use until you feel that the RF versions will serve your needs better. Also, don't be too quick to get rid of your 5D3; it's an outstanding camera (still one of my favorites!) and will make a great companion (not back-up!) camera to mount a different lens on while using your R5. I've kept my 7D2 and have no intention of letting it go anytime soon.

    Andy
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2021
    peter_c|5 and ajkocu like this.
  13. Mick:

    I am just about four years older than you, and I am also considering the EF to RF transition. My EF system is more comprehensive than yours, I got into EF in 1993 and went digital ten years later. But having been a professional since 1979 AND being an inveterate gear acquirer I obviously have an awful lot of EF gear. 12 White ones, anyone? My flagship camera is the 5 DsR, an amazing piece of equipment. Yet my mirrorless baby steps with M 5 and M 6 Mk. II have convinced me that there are clear advantages to ML. Near full frame autofocus and eye focus are the two most important plusses to me.

    Currently my thinking is to wait for the R 5s (or whatever the high MP camera will be called) and get the control ring adapter. I also have all but the 28 mm of the Sigma Art f/1.4 lenses, so I generally consider myself well lensed up. Though I do see a 24-105 L in my future also. But a wholesale lens switch over I don't envision since my current lenses range from very good to exceptional. I do very little paid work nowadays (and I could probably do it all with the M system.) Interestingly enough I think I have become a significantly better photographer as I have scaled back my workload, which has given me a lot more time to experiment with composition and lighting. It is feasible that I might be quite happy with the current R 5. But since I routinely print 24"x36" I like to have as much resolution as possible.

    On the lens issue the only reason I can see that might make me upgrade is if some of my very good EF non IS lenses are to be replaced with a superior RF IS lens. I guess everything is possible....
     
  14. Hi Andy.

    I would say that you made a good transition to the R6. Like you, I won’t be shooting any video. As for the resolution difference between the R5 and R6, I am looking for more than my 5DM3 offers, so I’m going to go for the R5 -- and with the control ring. I’m also going to get the FD to RF adapter to use my old FD lenses in a mad dash for manual shooting. Cropping was a consideration for me. I was considering the R3 but the more I read the rumors the more I think that the R3 is not a good fit for me. I have a friend that got the R6 and was our 50th wedding anniversary photographer. She loves the R6 and tried a couple of my EF lenses.

    I’ve read that all the RF lenses are better than their EF equivalents so it’s no surprise that you find the RF24-105mm L so good. I had not looked too closely at the lens sizes though – worth some more time to review that. My EF 24-15mm is my current walk-around lens and it’s almost always on my camera. I’m not going to have a budget that will allow me to get more than one RF lens and that 24-240 may just be my new walk-around lens. Right now, it’s a toss-up between the an 85mm and the 24-240mm. Maybe if I buy the EF85mm f1.8 I could do both!

    I don’t have any lenses yet that go beyond 200mm. Budget and compatibility issues for me thus far.

    I gave my old 40D to one of my granddaughters but like your thought of using my 5DM3 for a companion camera. I used to use the 40D as a companion camera.

    I should be ready to pull the trigger in September for the R5.

    Thanks for your feedback Andy.
     
    andycollins4716 likes this.
  15. My history with photography is far more checkered than yours is Christian. I got the bug when I was 17 and shot until I was 19 when my life got more complicated; I was in the military moving around, got married, got kids, went to college, worked, designed and built my house, and more. I got my 40D late in 2008 but did not really get the bug back in any meaningful way until around 2014 – 2015. I looked and drooled over the 5DS or 5DSr as I thought that would be a good move because it be a great fit with my 5DM3. Now I just want to go forward to mirrorless.

    You have quite the collection of lenses – note a very substantial dose of lens envy here Christian.

    I sincerely hope that my photography has improved. I think it has. I give credit my exposure to some really fine photographers here on PN and being able to spend more time enjoying it since retiring.

    I’ve done a 20X30 canvas print and a couple of 30X40 canvas prints for the house with the 5DM3 that turned out great. Most of the stuff I print is 11X14 with a few 16X20s. I have about 60 - 70 photos in the walls – got any extra wall space I could borrow?

    Now I am trying to expand my skills too. Like you I have been focusing more on composition but also working to expand my subject matter and post processing creativity. I want to also take manual control more - sounds crazy to buy a camera like the R5 while wanting to go manual. I think a good dose of manual shooting may help improve my work though. There is just so much neat stuff to do! The last 2 years have been challenging and I am planning on changing that.

    Thanks Christian!
     
  16. Actually it is not crazy.
    If you really want to control the exposure, you have to go manual. The camera's meter can only go so far, and there will always be lighting situations that the camera can't handle. I have had situations where the background is very DARK or BRIGHT, and the cameras meter could not deal with it. The subject was over or under exposed. So, your brain has to step in and make the exposure decision. What is nice about the mirrorless, is that you can see the exposure issue before you press the shutter button, so you can adjust in real time.
    Also, when the lighting is constant (like a cloudless sky, or in the gym), I will often shoot manual, so that the exposure is not affected by the different reflectance of the scene.

    That is also why I rarely use "face detect AF." In many situations, it will focus on the WRONG faces, or a face when I want it to focus on an object.
    As much as I like AF, sometimes it makes me upset.
    • Shooting football, and the ref run in front of me, and the AF changes focus from the player to the ref. Then I have to reacquire AF on the player.
    • "Trying" to shoot volleyball through the net. That is an easy task with a manual focus lens, but the AF usually focuses on the net itself.
    Everything has to be used as appropriate to the scene.
     
    mickeysimpson likes this.
  17. Hi Gary.

    I have been working on manual shooting more in the last couple of years selecting one or more parameters, e.g. aperture, shutter, AF points, along with ISO for some shots. In most situations I have let my camera manage focus using the AF points I selected. I am looking forward to using my old FD lenses with the FD to RF adapter which will push me farther with manual photography including focus.

    Your comments about sports photography are interesting and scenarios that I had not considered. My sports photography is very limited and I was able to avoid the conflicting movement of participants, officials, and spectators.

    Its also nice to know that I may not be so crazy after all! :) Thanks Gary.
     
  18. Sports is similar to the people and kids at a party.
    People get between you and your subject, and "closest subject" AF fails. Been there, done that.

    Having said that, I would not willingly go back to manual focus, except on the old film cameras. AF is so much faster, and as my eyes get older, I can't manually focus as fast and easily as I used to. But knowing how to manually focus, lets me do it when I need to.
     
    mickeysimpson likes this.
  19. I am in the same boat, although I have an Olympus m43 system that is my main camera. I keep the Canon EOS for low light sports. Currently I'm keeping the EOS as the prices of the R5 is too high. After I got the 5DIV I said I would never buy a new camera >$3000 as they are just not a worthwhile expense for me and I think it still holds up now. When I can buy a secondhand R5 for c$2500 or less then I will think about buying one and using the EF lenses on it, or might sell all my EFs and get an RF 50mm f1.8 (when one becomes available) and 70-200 f2.8, which is all I need for sports. But to be honest I anticipate that when my son will no longer be playing basketball, I will no longer have a need for a large, expensive FF camera, so I will then be delighted to sell off everything and just use the m43. For me the behemoth FF systems are no longer desirable. My suggestion is to think about your photography needs (rather than wants) and consider a smaller format, as one gets older one loses ones tolerance for packing a huge kit. APS and m43 produce superb results in small packages and, particularly in the case of 43, there are many lens choices.
     
  20. Whatever you do, don't follow my example.

    At first it was just one little Praktica, it seemed nice so I got another.....

    Now I have over 120 cameras ranging from old East German ones to the first couple of generations of AF.....

    Some of my first ones
    camera-collection_r.jpg

    Anyhow, a good path is to find some cameras that you really like using and shoot with them, a lot.
     
    Mark Keefer likes this.

Share This Page