5Ds Mark II and hate for mirrorless
I am all for people taking photos, what I am suspicious of is very complicated technology that removes the user from the process at great expense with modest improvements in end results.
Do you need an R5 and $2,000+ F2.8 zoom lenses for most of your images? Of course not! Does IBIS help in some shooting situations? Of course it does.
Personally, and I am a slow adopter traditionally, I see the pros and cons of both DSLR’s and MILC’s, I love the truly silent shutters with MILC’s and the actual view of what I am shooting with a DSLR. I hate the price and complexity, size and weight of most of the RF lenses but appreciate that my perfectly good EF lenses work seamlessly on R series bodies to this point.
It seems to me we are in a golden age of Canon cameras, we have a fully supported and extensively developed EF system and a new R system that brings new features that only each of us can decide for our personal use how valuable they are.
I don’t hate anything, but don’t see a need or requirement to fully transition to RF because, for my use, I haven’t seen noticeably ‘better’ images from the newer system.
Do you need an R5 and $2,000+ F2.8 zoom lenses for most of your images? Of course not! Does IBIS help in some shooting situations? Of course it does.
Personally, and I am a slow adopter traditionally, I see the pros and cons of both DSLR’s and MILC’s, I love the truly silent shutters with MILC’s and the actual view of what I am shooting with a DSLR. I hate the price and complexity, size and weight of most of the RF lenses but appreciate that my perfectly good EF lenses work seamlessly on R series bodies to this point.
It seems to me we are in a golden age of Canon cameras, we have a fully supported and extensively developed EF system and a new R system that brings new features that only each of us can decide for our personal use how valuable they are.
I don’t hate anything, but don’t see a need or requirement to fully transition to RF because, for my use, I haven’t seen noticeably ‘better’ images from the newer system.
Upvote
0
I’m actually with you here. While I have two RF lenses and they perform well that are larger and heavier than I need, nor does most of my shooting require ibis.
For the most part I’m a landscape shooter. I don’t usually need lenses faster than f4 though many of mine are. My favorites are manual focus zeiss glass.
My perfect camera would be 100mp (needed or not), normal size body with included gos and about 15stops of DR. The rest would be gravy (and is).
That being said, I have a 5d4 that is more than capable of doing what I need. I now have an R5 that is a little more capable and that I actually enjoy using more. I dont NEED either one, but i like them both. I may end up like the R3 enough to get it although it is aimed at a style of shooting I don’t do. I most definitely will get a high no version when it comes out if anywhere near what is rumored. Technology is cool, and I enjoy using it and learning from it.
You know where I stop though? Computational photography. I get it, but a part of doing this is the challenge of creating pleasing image. It isn’t the image but the journey of getting it.
Upvote
0
That's true - the variety is remarkable (and with more to come - R7, R1, High MP R). The fact that the older FF (and APS-C) DSLRs (and M series) are still available during the full transition to mirrorless gives a choice of bodies and lens combinations that is probably once-in-a-lifetime.
Upvote
0
I tried Fuji...before the 100 but still. In fact the gfx100 tempted me greatly and still does in some respects. I liked it okay but never cared for the xtrans files. I know the 100 isn’t xtrans. I did download several raw files and play around with them. Very impressive. I may end up there yet but I will wait a bit.
I’m beginning to look toward retirement
Upvote
0
The actual landscape images I have seen and played with out of the GFX100S are simply staggeringly good, the detail is one thing but the tonality and subtle color gradation is on a completely different level to 14 bit ff image files.
The fact that there are lens adapters to put EF lenses on the Fuji and my most used 'landscape' lenses are TS-E's that work particularly well on the adapter would certainly have me over the edge if I was predominantly landscapes. I liked the GFX 100, but that GFX 100S is an amazing tool. The one thing I don't like about it is the 4:3 native sensor ratio, I end up cropping most of my big print images to at least 3:2, and often more, so some of the benefit of the sensor size is lost, but that true 16 bit RAW capture is something to revel in....
Upvote
0
Trust me...get one, before you retire.
Get the GFX100S, the newer more compact model. It has pretty much everything the original GFX100 has except a bit less fidelity on the EVF and the EVF on the 100S isn't interchangeable.
But it is much more compact and easier to handle IMHO.
Upvote
0
thank you gentlemen. I very well may do it, or rent one for a while. Fortunately when I retire I will actually have quite a bit more disposable income than I do now...so there are a lot of possibilities on the table.
Upvote
0
I’m more of a mirrorless shooter than I tend to let on, not even counting my G5X II that I am currently not using since not traveling. When the 5D IV was selling under $2,000, I almost bought one as an impulse purchase. Then I thought about how much I use the flippy screen, and realized that I’d still wind up using my 6D2 a lot anyway. I got out of the upgrade mood, and the price went back up. I wouldn’t want to do without having the OVF, but I don’t have to use the mirror all the time.
Upvote
0
As I'd mentioned in other threads, one of the really GREAT things I've found about mirrorless is.....being able to adapt pretty much ANY vintage lens that has been made in the past.
If you want clinical sharp, well, stick with modern lenses, but, if you want some very interesting character, interesting bokeh, etc...take a look at adapting vintage lenses.
It really is opening up new artistic vision for me. And even with my bad eyesight, the new focusing aids on the new mirrorless cameras helps me nail it quite well.
Just my $0.02,
cayenne
If you want clinical sharp, well, stick with modern lenses, but, if you want some very interesting character, interesting bokeh, etc...take a look at adapting vintage lenses.
It really is opening up new artistic vision for me. And even with my bad eyesight, the new focusing aids on the new mirrorless cameras helps me nail it quite well.
Just my $0.02,
cayenne
Upvote
0
On non-electronic vintage lenses, I still have trouble.
Focus peaking has helped me, but I still miss focus a lot. Still, I love my old M42 mount lenses.
Upvote
0
I had the "luxury" of coming into photography recently enough that I had almost no sunk cost in DSLRs. So it didn't cost me anything to transition. I owned no full frame camera before I got the R5.
I still haven't learned to use it effectively on a technical level, but I am fine with that; it's room to grow without the gear limiting me. I was surprised, a few months ago, to discover the ways it aids manual focus in a situation where I had to manual focus (I was taking pictures of the great conjunction). I do that infrequently enough that for all I know it's a feature on every camera, but it was a pleasant discovery nonetheless.
Upvote
0
I know this question was aimed at the OP but I have considered the RP as a small, light travel camera, but.......
It doesn't stack up well to say the Nikon Z5 for instance which is only slightly more expensive but is pretty comprehensively spec'd; mag alloy body, modern sensor, though not BSI, (although it's debatable how much that really improved FF sensors), IBIS if you want it etc etc.
Also for someone who wishes to manipulate the files you'd be diving back past 5DII vintage. At low ISO it is intrusively noisy without any NR applied, although at high ISO it responds really well to NR so can produce remarkably good results.
I have seen some beautiful images from the RP but it seems best not to bend the files much, if at all, then you'll be happy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've thought about it, but I'm going to hold out for thie new cheaper FF and see what brings.
Upvote
0
Just work with it a bit...you'll get there.On non-electronic vintage lenses, I still have trouble.
It took me awhile, and well, let's face it, we are trying to manual focus...you will miss some, especially if things are moving a bit.
But hey, they had to do it full manual not THAT many years ago, without focus aids and still they pulled it off, so...we can too with work and practice.
I find the pay off often is very much worth the effort, so, give it some practice and keep trying would be my best unsolicited advice.
C
Upvote
0
I agree completely, although to be fair to the current group of users, back then you had split prisms etc. that made focusing pretty equal to the electronic focus aides of today. It's frustrating that you can no longer change focusing screens on modern DSLRsJust work with it a bit...you'll get there.
It took me awhile, and well, let's face it, we are trying to manual focus...you will miss some, especially if things are moving a bit.
But hey, they had to do it full manual not THAT many years ago, without focus aids and still they pulled it off, so...we can too with work and practice.
I find the pay off often is very much worth the effort, so, give it some practice and keep trying would be my best unsolicited advice.
C
Upvote
0
