Mirrorless Camera

[joebranko]

Thinking or getting a mirrorless camera. Because I have been using Canon for sometime, and have accumulated several Canon style lenses, I am leaning towards Canon, as I should be able to get an adapter to enable my using my existing lenses.
I am looking at Cannon r6..
Would appreciate and and add comments.

[billtils]

I'd start by asking myself why do I want to do this?

Make a list starting with what you want from a camera that your current gear cannot give you then look at all the available gear (DSLR and mirrorless) that will fill the void. Do the candidates have weaknesses in other areas that could offset the advantage? And finally is it worth the money or could you get a greater benefit from spending the same amount on something else - new glass for example ...

If it passes the paper test, next step is to find one you like (I'd guess Canon R series in your case) and give it a try, does if "feel" right and never mind the reviews, what do you think of the results.

Good luck!


As an aside, I'm not clear from what I've read whether or not going mirrorless + adapter achieves much other than buying time to build up a collection of mirrorless lenses, perhaps someone who has made the journey (adapter then dedicated lenses) could enlighten us on whether the lenses are an essential part of the change?

[DanK]

I too strongly suggest starting with a list of reasons for upgrading. That's the best way to determine whether it will really help and, if so, what's the best option.

I'd be interested in answers to Bill's last question from people using mirrorless cameras. I have only one small one that's not an ILC, so I don't think I can answer well. However, I have two thoughts:

First, when I was considering an upgrade last year, shortly after the R5 came out, I did work out a list of pros and cons for that camera in comparision to the DSLR I bought, a 5D Mark IV (apart from the huge difference in price). I may have been misguided, but lenses didn't enter into the mix. While in principle, R-mount lenses can be better because of the shorter flange distance, and in addition, they are newer designs, the fact is that most of my EF lenses are good enough that they are never a binding constraint. (The one I am not happy with, the 24-105, is reportedly not all that different from the R-mount version.) And EF lenses apparently work just fine on R bodies, at least if you use a Canon adapter. The factors on my list were all about the body. E.g., I prefer an optical viewfinder, but it's very handy to have all the additional information you can choose to have displayed in an EVF. The R series has a vastly faster burst rate, which is great for bird photographers but essentially no use to me. The R bodies have excellent AF capabilities that the 5D doesn't have, in particular, eye AF through the viewfinder, which I would find very handy, as I do a lot of candids of kids. I'm sure there were other things on the list, but I've lost track.

For me, sensor density is an issue. I print large and often have to crop, so the 30 MPX in the 5D is preferable to the 20 in the R6. If I didn't print large, I would have been entirely happy with the 20. I didn't want the 45 MPX in the R5, which is a density they had to reach in order to do 5K video, which is of absolutely no value whatever to me.

In the 10 months since I bought my 5DIV, things have changed, and as much as I love the camera, I might not choose it if I were buying today. There are widespread rumors--from good sources, but not yet confirmed by Canon--that Canon is stopping production of about 25 EF lenses, including some superb ones, like the EF 70-200 f/4 IS, which was introduced only 3 years ago. If that turns out to be true, then the end of the Canon DSLR era is on the horizon, although still far off. I might have ended up buying mirrorless just to avoid obsolescence, although to be honest, my 5D IV will probably last longer than I will.

In any case, I'd start with Bill's suggestion: make a list of what you need and want, being as specific as you can.

[escape]

Keep it simple. If you want it, get it. You can always return it Just make sure you check the return policy. Most purchases are emotionally driven anyway.

[royent]

Above Dan wrote. I'd start with Bill's suggestion: make a list of what you need and want,
Can I suggest. Make a list of what you need.
Roy

[billtils]

... The R series has a vastly faster burst rate, which is great for bird photographers but essentially no use to me. The R bodies have excellent AF capabilities t...

For me, sensor density is an issue. ..

I might not choose it if I were buying today. I might have ended up buying mirrorless just to avoid obsolescence, although to be honest, my 5D IV will probably last longer than I will.

This is more a follow-up to Dan's post than direct advice to Joe - but may help him!

I looked at the Nikon Z line a month or so ago as a possible answer to the limitations of the D810 burst rate and focus when I was shooting bird and other moving wildlife. The sticker price clarified my mind wonderfully well and I ended up buying a Nikon D500 which does all that I want for less than any of the mirrorless options and a lot less if updating the glass is also a consideration.

Like Dan says if I were starting out new it would be a different story but my current gear does all that I want and will do for as long as I can reasonably expect to be out and about shooting wildlife. - it will be old but that's not the same as useless and not fit for purpose.

[joebranko]

I'd start by asking myself why do I want to do this?

Thanks Bill. My first impression of the mirrorless camera was that I could get one equivalent to my current camera but much lighter. Having looked at the specs I realized that this was not the case.

[joebranko]

Thanks Roy, Daniel and Dan. Your comments were much appreciated.

[billtils]

Thanks Bill. My first impression of the mirrorless camera was that I could get one equivalent to my current camera but much lighter. Having looked at the specs I realized that this was not the case.

I've probably posted this elsewhere too and it does have a degree of 'what works for me' but one thing that puts me right off mirrorless is the light weight. I shoot handheld and a decent mass in the body and lens is needed for stability (except for BIF where you're panning possibly). This comment is based on my experiences with my son's Sony.

[inkista]

Thanks Bill. My first impression of the mirrorless camera was that I could get one equivalent to my current camera but much lighter. Having looked at the specs I realized that this was not the case.

Yup. The camera body may be lighter, but sensor format can also play a huge factor in the size/weight of things. And regardless of whether a lens is made for mirrorless or full frame, unless you're moving to a pancake lens design for a walkaround prime or kit lens zoom, the chances are really good an equivalent lens with the same max. aperture is going to be more or less the same size/weight. If you go from APS-C dSLR to full-frame mirrorless, the chances are you aren't going to see much overall difference in your walkaround combo, and your bag might actually get heavier from the bigger/heavier lenses required to cover a full frame sensor.

That doesn't mean you can't save on bulk, but only if you stay at the same sensor format or go smaller. A lot of the myth that mirrorless means less weight/bulk than dSLR came from the fact that initially, when mirrorless first came out. a lot of folks were moving from full-frame dSLRs to micro four-thirds (2x crop sensors). [I did it, and my bag went from 25 lbs. to 5 lbs.] But that's not the typical case any more.

[davidedric]

Welcome back, Kathy. Don't seem to have heard from you for ages!

[xpatUSA]

That doesn't mean you can't save on bulk, but only if you stay at the same sensor format or go smaller. A lot of the myth that mirrorless means less weight/bulk than dSLR came from the fact that initially, when mirrorless first came out. a lot of folks were moving from full-frame dSLRs to micro four-thirds (2x crop sensors). [I did it, and my bag went from 25 lbs. to 5 lbs.] But that's not the typical case any more.

Good point, Kathy. A good while ago I bought a Panasonic G1 m4/3 to go with my Sigma SD9 house-brick. A nice light camera - but recently I bought a Panasonic G9 which is considerably larger and heavier ...

[DanK]

Re weight: exactly so. That was on my list early on, but I then calculated the weight for various body+lens combinations that I often carry, and the differences between the DSLR and mirrorless were not all that big. Not zero, but not large enough to compensate for how much heavier the stuff seems every year.

[joebranko]

Yup. The camera body may be lighter, but sensor format can also play a huge factor in the size/weight of things. And regardless of whether a lens is made for mirrorless or full frame, unless you're moving to a pancake lens design for a walkaround prime or kit lens zoom, the chances are really good an equivalent lens with the same max. aperture is going to be more or less the same size/weight.

That doesn't mean you can't save on bulk, but only if you stay at the same sensor format or go smaller. A lot of the myth that mirrorless means less weight/bulk than dSLR came from the fact that initially, when mirrorless first came out. a lot of folks were moving from full-frame dSLRs to micro four-thirds

Thanks Kathy. This is helpful. I neglected the sensor format in my thoughts.

[joebranko]

Re weight: exactly so. . Not zero, but not large enough to compensate for how much heavier the stuff seems every year.

I know the feeling. In the last 2 years I seemed to age 10, which is why the thought of a lighter camera is so attractive.

[inkista]

Welcome back, Kathy. Don't seem to have heard from you for ages!

[waves]. I'm around. I just haven't had much to contribute to the conversation lately.

[LenR]

A new release expected from Canon - EOS R3. Appears to be aimed at the professional niche.
Like others still on the fence regarding mirrorless.

https://canon.ca/en/About-Canon/News...ment-RF-Lenses

[DanK]

This one had to be coming.

I still wish they would produce something in between the R5 and R6, but that would make no sense for them at this time. It seems as though the R6 is the mirrorless replacement for the 6D and the R5 is the mirrorless replacement for the 5D IV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rpcrowe]

Yes, you "CAN" save in weight and bulk by switching from DSLR based to mirrorless based cameras.

However, often the weight saving is not as great as one might suspect. That is because many lenses for full frame mirrorless cameras are as large and as heavy as DSLR lenses. In fact the Sony G-Master series lenses are generally a bit heavier and the original Sigma 85mm f/1.4 lens could be considered pretty much a monster in size and weight.

An area in which there might be a considerable weight savings is in Sony APSC format cameras as well as the newish full frame Sony A7C camera... An example of weight savings in the APSC format is the difference between shooting with the Canon 7Dii camera equipped with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Mk-2 lens (package weighs 2516 grams) and the Sony A6600 camera equipped with the Sony 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS lens (package weighs 1078 grams) far less than half the weight for very close to the same focal length. Even the Sony 100-400mm OSS lens mounted on the A6600 is considerably lighter than the Canon setup at 1851 grams vs 2516 for the Canon...

A Sony mirrorless shooter now has a plethora of lighter weight lenses to choose from. There is a group of prime lenses from Sigma, Tamron and Samyang that are designed for Sony full frame cameras and which are quite lightweight...

ABOUT ADAPTERS... I switched to Sony because of their excellent autofocus systems but, I did not get the top-notch AF I expected using either Sigma MC-11 or Metabones 4 adapters with Canon glass... In fact, my Canon 100mm f/2.8 (non-L) macro would not AF at all with either of the two adapters I used! Once I tried native e-mount lenses (both Sony and Third Party) I was hooked on the autofocus of the Sony systems and sold all my Canon gear...

Note: CANIKON has been lately catching up with Sony in the area of autofocus...

[DanK]

I think it is helpful to separate sensor format from mirrorless/dslr. Smaller-format cameras are lighter, of course. But once one has decided on a format, the question is how much weight one saves by going mirrorless. The answer, in the few cases where I have done the arithmetic, is not very much.

Lenses for mirrorless cameras can be slightly lighter, I think because of the shorter flange distance.

In any case, here's a comparison. I usually shoot full frame, although I also have an APSC body and a small MFT body. When shooting my FF, my most common combination is the body with the EF 24-105 L lens. That combination weighs 1595 g. The mirrorless alternative, the R5 with the RF 24-105 lens, weights 1438 g. The weight savings is 10%.

So my bottom line was that if saving weight is to be my primary goal (looking more attractive every year), then I have to consider a smaller sensor, which I'm not yet willing to do.

BTW, I am not a Canon fanboy, but the reviews I've read suggest that with the R5, Canon has fully caught up with Sony in terms of AF. In fact, some reviews say that for some conditions, the R5 beats the Sony competition. My take-away is that AF quality wouldn't be a big faactor in my mind if a truck ran over my equipment and I had no choice but to replace it.