Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
- Thread starter l0pht
- Start date
twdi said:
I briefly owned a Fuji X series camera and got the impression that while it had less noise at high ISOs, this was merely because it applied aggressive noise reduction even to RAW files - its files had much less detail than equivalents from my other cameras, mirrorless and otherwise (in fact I noticed a relative lack of sharpness at any ISO, an impression confirmed by just about every photo I've seen online taken with any Fuji X-series camera). For that and other reasons I returned it. I really wanted to like the images it created because I find the cameras themselves very appealing aesthetically and in terms of design, but among mirrorless cameras I prefer the results from my Olympus and Sonys. This seems to be rather a minority view, however.
Upvote
0
l0pht said:
Sorry to be late to the party:
1) If you are going to sell for size reasons...
- Call it what it is. Lose the mirror and get a much smaller body -- remember that the lens size will still be as big as your sensor-size needs, so even though there are flange-to-sensor differences in mirrorless and SLRs, the lenses (for a given sensor size) are roughly comparable in size.
- I think if you enjoy editing RAW files then you should get a sensor worth editing RAW files for. I rented a Nikon AW1 (their 1-series, but for underwater use) and though it offered RAW files, the tiny sensor was such that the results were terribly underwhelming compared to a FF camera (as you might expect with such a small sensor). So if you are moving towards a smaller camera but still want very good IQ, think Leica, Fuji X or Sony A7 bodies.
2) If you are not going to sell, or want to cope better with your gear until you do sell...
- I saw the battery grip comment you made. Lose the grip. Based on what you are shooting, you shouldn't need it. Just throw a second battery in your bag, and you'll be fine. That's a huge space savings right there.
- I'd think about picking up the EF 40mm F/2.8 pancake. It's more of a 'good shooting conditions' lens given the aperture and so-so STM focusing speed. So you won't use it much for low-light / sports / really small DOF work, the but the 'IQ per volume of lens' is staggering from that little guy. As the CR reviewer Justin would say, it's "sharp like a katana" and is no bigger than a hockey puck / small can of tuna.
- A
Upvote
0
Do yourself a favor and at least LOOK at the astonishing little SL-1. I see this camera as possibly the most interesting release from Canon in the past 12 months. It's light and tiny. It won't deliver files like your 5D3, but it's got a perfectly fine APS-C sensor.l0pht said:
Alternatively, running with the argument that the best camera is the one you have with you, the new Sony RX-100 III looks absolutely stunning.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05/16/sony-announces-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100-iii-with-evf-and-f1-8-2-8-zoom?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_47
-pw
Upvote
0
How much space are you actually saving with a Sony A7 mirrorless camera as some have recommended? Since you can't take a picture without a lens attached, the answer is not much at all!
See below comparisons:
Sony A7 native 55mm f/1.8 vs Canon 6D native 50mm f/1.4
-and-
Sony A7 native 35mm f/2.8 vs Canon 6D native 40mm f/2.8
See below comparisons:
Sony A7 native 55mm f/1.8 vs Canon 6D native 50mm f/1.4
-and-
Sony A7 native 35mm f/2.8 vs Canon 6D native 40mm f/2.8
Attachments
Upvote
0
Ruined said:
But look at the differences in height and weight.
I feel that as soon as you start even considering the 6D, then the perceived mediocre AF of any mirrorless camera falls away.
Upvote
0
Ruined said:
+1. Everyone seems to miss this. Sure, the cameras are thinner without a mirror, but a big sensor (generally) has big lenses.
So if I ever got tired of lugging my FF rig around and wanted a smaller body, it would be APS-C or smaller, and I'd expressly choose a system that had really well reviewed pancakes.
- A
Upvote
0
I have been researching alternatives to my 5D3 and bag of lenses for vacation and casual situations and have been taking a serious look at the Fuji X-series lineup. I went so far as to buy a 40mm pancake but it is still huge next to a X100S. I am not convinced that I could live with a 35mm fixed (equiv) on the X100s though...
I love the feel of the X-T1 and the knobs give you most of what you need to fiddle with right at your fingertips.
I have also been weighing the pros and cons of a S120, G17 or G1X M2 (I own the S90). I wanted to stay Canon for flash and accessory compatibility reasons but I gotta say - the Fuji's are very impressive to handle. The G1X M2 felt un-balanced in the store but I would love to hear people comments about it as it is still a contender as an alternative to the 5D3.
I love the feel of the X-T1 and the knobs give you most of what you need to fiddle with right at your fingertips.
I have also been weighing the pros and cons of a S120, G17 or G1X M2 (I own the S90). I wanted to stay Canon for flash and accessory compatibility reasons but I gotta say - the Fuji's are very impressive to handle. The G1X M2 felt un-balanced in the store but I would love to hear people comments about it as it is still a contender as an alternative to the 5D3.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
+1. Which is why I got the M to complement my 5DIII. The native lenses maybe be slower, but it is a much more compact system. But when the light levels are low, I'd rather have the larger sensor with the fastest lenses.
I don't think it's a surprise that many of the initial lenses for the Sony are relatively slow. (i.e. 28-70, 24-70 f/4, 35 f/2.8, 55 f/1.8). Imagine if they had come out with these lenses instead (24-70 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, 55 f/1.2, 70-200 f/2.8), then the price and size would have killed off the A7 system at the start.
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
I picked up an sl1 for my daughter but it is a nice complement to my mkiii. The problem is that I should most out my cheaper lenses and I started to let her use my L glass... and that was disconcerting... so I bought her the impressive little 40mm.
Upvote
0
Sella174 said:
Ok, If my first graphic was not convincing enough...
Sony A7 native 55mm f/1.8 vs Canon 6D native 50mm f/1.4 - Canon weighs 305g more, but is f/1.4 instead of f/1.8. 305g is about the weight of either of these lenses, not exactly a massive difference.
Sony A7 native 35mm f/2.8 vs Canon 6D native 40mm f/2.8 - Canon weighs 306g more, again about the weight of a light lens.
Height, sure the Sony is a little less tall. But given the depth of the lens I don't really see how that matters as neither is going to fit into a pocket comfortably with lens attached, and constantly taking the lens on and off every time you use the camera is going to dirty up your sensor really fast - so that is not a practical argument either.
So another fun graphic!
The OP stated he had a 135mm prime he liked to use. Let us see what native lens is on the Sony A7... Ah, the 70-200 f/4 is the only option at that focal length. Slower, much larger, worse bokeh, etc. Might not seem fair, but if you are going with an ecosystem that has a paltry amount of native lenses it is fair game. One can fiddle with adapters, but that often can affect quality, autofocus speed, etc.
So, here we go, which do you think is more compact?
Is it really worth giving up the entire Canon lens and accessory ecosystem (Sony's only powerful flash pales in comparison to the 600RT, not even close) for 300g less weight and a bit less tall camera? That btw, will be an ergonomic nightmare if you did want to use it for professional purposes with a large lens like a 70-200 f/2.8 due to lack of sufficient grip on the A7 for heavy/large lenses.
Sony A7 135mm focal length on native FE 70-200 f/4 (only native 135mm option) vs. Canon 6D native 135mm f/2
Attachments
Upvote
0
Ruined said:
Again, agree. Unless you are putting a compact standard FL lens on it, like a FF-equivalent 35 prime or 50 prime on it and calling it a day, I see little upside in form factor for mirrorless. If you need a tele at all, you're done -- you are lugging around large lenses again and the principal upside of mirrorless is lost.
Mirrorless has other virtues but if you are getting one principally to reduce the size / weight of what you are lugging around, your big lenses need an exit strategy, too.
So if you are getting into mirrorless for size, I think it's best to choose a mirrorless body with a large stable of it's own native glass -- no need for the added size/thickness of adapters. Leica (for FF) and Fuji (for APS-C) are decent options in that regard, but if you can stomach the smaller sensor, m43 rigs have a larger ecosystem for lenses. (I believe that mount is standardized, isn't it? Don't Olympus and Panasonic make lenses that are compatible on each others' bodies?)
- A
Upvote
0
Hi All
I also have a 5D II and went looking for a mirrorless travel camera. After some months and waiting I bought a G1X II and I am really enjoying it. I like the heft and feel of it and that the quality of the photos. Yes it is not FF but it cracks a punch for its compactness. The fixed lens is a great change - 24mm to 120mm equivalent to FF - is so compact.
I toyed with the idea of an EOS-M but I did not want to lug lens around or something that bulky with the lens attached. Same reason as I did not go for Sony alpha etc. The Sony RX-100 I & I were too small for me. I was only able to try it at the store and also the vision on the screen looked too compressed. Also I was not too keen on the smaller 1" sensor of the Sony.
I also have a 5D II and went looking for a mirrorless travel camera. After some months and waiting I bought a G1X II and I am really enjoying it. I like the heft and feel of it and that the quality of the photos. Yes it is not FF but it cracks a punch for its compactness. The fixed lens is a great change - 24mm to 120mm equivalent to FF - is so compact.
I toyed with the idea of an EOS-M but I did not want to lug lens around or something that bulky with the lens attached. Same reason as I did not go for Sony alpha etc. The Sony RX-100 I & I were too small for me. I was only able to try it at the store and also the vision on the screen looked too compressed. Also I was not too keen on the smaller 1" sensor of the Sony.
Upvote
0
I have to say that I am impressed with your combo. You mention only the 5D II and the 35L and 135L, and none of these are kit lenses for that camera. That tells me that you either bought the house separately, and/or that you got rid of your 24-105 (or 24-70L), from which I deduce that you have no compromises for quality. I think you will find that the 5DII and 135L combo will be hard to beat from a IQ perspective.
I agree with some of the posters here talking about fatigue/being uninspired right now. The 5DII resale price is very low now, so you are not in a hurry to get rid of it. I would wait and see if inspiration comes back. And of course get rid of the grip if it bothers you.
I agree with some of the posters here talking about fatigue/being uninspired right now. The 5DII resale price is very low now, so you are not in a hurry to get rid of it. I would wait and see if inspiration comes back. And of course get rid of the grip if it bothers you.
Upvote
0
sdsr said:
Not sure what you were shooting but I've got OOC jpg output from an XM1 and kit lens that is terrifically sharp even at 6400. Xt1 and long cheap kit lens similarly impressively sharp. Posted one here a while back.
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20200.msg382770#msg382770
perhaps you were suffering blur from some non-stabilized lenses?
Upvote
0
The size difference is much greater than those pictures show. While the length is similar when looking from above, the overall room that these cameras take up in a bag is still not the same. My a7 is a much smaller camera/lens combo than the 6D with almost any lens. Sure, the sizes seem similar, but the a7 is smaller and lighter. I also don't believe that the 6D is that great of a replacement to the 5DII....
If I was going to buy a new camera from the 5DII, i'd want either an a7, or a 5DIII, not a 6D.
I had an old Canon 5D Classic, and then bought an a7. I can say without a doubt that the size difference is substantial, and I will never buy another DSLR sized camera again.
The difference in everyday use is night and day.
If I was going to buy a new camera from the 5DII, i'd want either an a7, or a 5DIII, not a 6D.
I had an old Canon 5D Classic, and then bought an a7. I can say without a doubt that the size difference is substantial, and I will never buy another DSLR sized camera again.
The difference in everyday use is night and day.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
