Where do I go?

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

  1. WOW! I only have 5 old cameras. 1) a 2 X 3 Speed Graphic, 2) 4 X 5 Speed Graphic, 3) an old Kodak Flash 300 35mm, 4) a Canon T70 35mm, and 5) a Canon 40D. I have disposed of several other cameras that were anything but a pleasure to use or reliable. I do really like my 5D Mark III as it feels good in my hands and is easy to use. I want to go mirrorless with the R5 in the fall.
  2. Hi Robin.

    I understand the price issue of my hobby all too well and get your point. Cost versus desire/requirement is an individual judgement call that each of us must make. You have a very good full frame DSLR with the 5DIV. I am not familiar with the Olympus M43.

    Since I am a retired old goat and enjoy my photography I will go mirrorless with the R5. (I’m going to live it up on my children’s inheritance ) My 5DM3 will likely become a backup/companion camera, a role my 40D used to fill - yes I used to drag along two DSLRs with different lenses so I could swap without having to change the lens. I’ve grown to like my full frame Canon gear as it fits very well in my hands and I do not personally find it too heavy. Also, I have enough EF glass to mitigate the up-front costs of moving to RF glass right away. I will also use my old FD glass with the R5 to maximize my manual photography.

    Sure, I am planning on the buying a new R5, the battery grip, the EF to RF control ring, an FD to RF adapter, and perhaps the RF 24-240mm and an 85mm lens. So, I’ll be gleefully spending well over $6,000 on the R5, lenses and accessories. I am also well aware that this decision may just get me a long-term occupancy in the doghouse. That said, I do look for refurbished gear each time I shop and believe that I can save about $400 to $600 with some refurbished gear.

    As for the smaller formats such as APS-C and micro 4/3, cropping and enlarging is on my list of requirements. My older Canon 40D (APS-C) was my first DSLR and I enjoyed using it very much but found it undesirable in that I frequently felt constrained with respect to cropping and enlarging. I have some very good prints from my 5DM3 as large as 30X40 and typically print 11X14 and 16X20. I have about 60 – 70 prints on my walls and constantly rotate new prints in these frames. I just got a new batch of 20 prints to rotate. I like my 5DM3 very much. I have had three film 35mm cameras.

    I try to think about what I should bring when I head out to snap a few photos. I will always bring a walk-around lens, currently my 24-105mm f4L IS USM on my 5DM3. That may become the 24-240mm f4-6.3 on my R5. I may also bring my 16-35mm f4L IS USM and my 70-200mm F4L IS USM with me. It depends on my destination and probable subjects. I also have my eye on a Sigma 150-600mm S. Additionally I can stow lenses in the car if I see that I may need to change my plans.

    I think that I’ve decided on my direction now and just need to pull the trigger.

    Best wishes.

    andycollins4716 likes this.
  3. A few years ago I might have thought the same, but remember the resolution of the 5DIII is essentially the same as a good m43 camera and APS Fuji's are 26 MP. You can make great large prints from these. There are a number of advantages to the smaller camera systems that I urge you to think about. It is very easy to just upgrade and end up where you started in a few years. The R5 is a good camera, but all I was suggesting is to cast your net wider when thinking about it, because you are at a good point to do so.
  4. Hi Robin.

    First, I must confess to a bit of an embarrassing moment. Because I was unfamiliar with the Olympus cameras, I thought that you were referring to a specific Olympus DSLR/mirrorless camera model and not Micro 4/3! Well now that I’ve confessed to having a bit of egg on my face… I went about reviewing Micro 4/3, the Olympus and Fuji cameras after re-reading your prior note.

    I agree that the 5DM3 resolution is the same, and in fact lower than some the better M4/3 cameras now available.

    I considered going the 4/3 route several times starting around 2010. Each time I came away with the same conclusion for me. While there are some very capable and reasonably priced M4/3 DSLRs, and now M4/3 mirrorless camera bodies, I was faced with either buying new glass or using adapters for my Canon lenses. Looking again today I see a varying degree of performance with EF to M4/3 lens mount adapters with the Metabones adapter appearing to be favored. I believe that all of these adapters are reverse engineered and may not fully perform all EF lens functions.

    I do like the specs for the Olympus OM-D E-M1X following my review of the Olympus cameras online. The OM-D E-M1X is reasonably priced and the only one I would get if I were to jump to Olympus. The OM-D E-M1X gets great resolution from the 20Megapixel sensor in High-Res mode – 50 megapixels – and has many other pro level features. Truly a nice camera.

    I also took another look at Fuji’s camera bodies. Their GFX System has a large sensor, 43.8mm X 32.9mm, with exceptional resolution which should play into someone like me that is looking for crop and enlarge. I liked Fuji’s GFX100 the most.

    What I see in the photos of photographers handling the Olympus and Fuji cameras leads me to believe that I would find them a bit small and uncomfortable in my hands with those cute little “fat” fingers I have on my hands. I have handled a Canon R6 and found its size acceptable.

    So, in reviewing these M4/3 options I recognize that there are some reasonably priced, and very strong M4/3 options but I still come to the same conclusion for me. I’ll stick to my large, heavy, expensive Canon gear.

    That said, I want to thank you Robin for making the case and following up. I truly do appreciate your effort because you did exactly what I asked for in my original post; present an option I did not list. You motivated me review the case and consider a shift.

    Thank you Robin!

    Gary Naka likes this.
  5. Mick

    Fair enough. One really does have to handle cameras to see whether you like them or not. I remember when I first went digital (DSLR), I was sure I wanted a Nikon, but when I picked a few up and compared to Canon, I just much preferred Canon. I feel the same today. Although Nikon mirrorless Z cameras are really good, I just don't want one. Nor do I much like Canon APS-C mirrorless. I remember when I first held and investigated the Sony and Olympus mirrorless efforts I was struck how they seem to have followed convergent evolution, and really liked both. Since I was wanting to reduce bulk I picked Olympus. So far so good. I have not actually tried an R5 or R6, but I would probably like them. The original Canon R was nice for general shooting, but hopeless for sports, so I passed on that and kept my 5DIV. I read that many people feel that the Sony bodies are too small or fit their hands awkwardly, so you may well be one of those. I find the Olympus pro cameras small but very easy to hold. Menus are a bear though. You can't go wrong with any good FF mirrorless camera these days in my opinion if you are a general shooter (i.e not a fanatical birder or sports shooter) and even then the differences are rather over exaggerated. Most would probably suggest Canon or Sony have the best chance of survival with Nikon close. Canon are getting their lens range together. My main beef with FF OM products is their very high price. I would like a Canon R5 with 70-200mm f2.8 for shooting sports, but the price is just too high for me now and its not like I really need it. The 5DIV does OK. I would like to try the R5 with the 28-70 f2. That would be a fun, if heavy combination.
  6. Great discussion Robin. One last note. I always add the battery grip which makes my camera body bigger and heavier.
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
    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.
  9. 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.
  10. I agree completely. Mirrorless eats batteries up quickly necessitating spares for extended shooting. Aren't the mirrorless lenses heavier than the DSLR lenses?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Another issue with both the RF Canon 70-20mms is that neither can take a teleconverter. This is definitely a strike against them.

Share This Page