Moving to Mirrorless

Well, I've finally done it, and ordered a new Canon R5.

Some of you may have seen my comments about looking into new cameras and gear in another post, A couple of days by the River Deben in Suffolk, and my apologies to Dave for the unintended hijack so I've set up a new thread to keep folks updated.

To continue from my comments, as many of you will be aware, I've been grounded by my falling apart body, but i've nothing but praise for the nurses, consultants, doctors and anyone else involved it working hard to resolve the situation.

We've all heard the old saying, the devil makes work for idle hands, well, include computer and mouse into that, and I've been researching into mirrorless cameras, which is the future, whether we like it or not.

Me, I'm intrigued and like the concept, but not the costs.....

Why the Canon R5?

Well, first and foremost, my son said go for it!

Some of you may be aware his partner walked out on him eighteen months ago, which almost rendered him homeless. While we would happily have taken him back, after a chat with my wife, his mother, I gave him a large chunk of my savings and agreed to be guarantor for his mortgage. I never gave any repayment terms, but he did ask how much, and has transferred some of the money back to me, enough to cover the R5.

I've been using Canon cameras for many decades, and I feel they are on a par with Nikon and the other big brand names, the only problem is, if you change to another brand, then you need to change all your lenses and other associated kit as well.

My research started with the cost of upgrading and also, many camera manufacturers also offer conversion kits, or adapters, so you can use your existing lenses on the new breed of cameras.

Also, my research shown that could I use my existing lenses, the cable and wireless remotes would work, so will the Speedlite flashgun. The only extra items required are the lens mount adaptor, and the memory cards, which are still the existing SD Card, or, the faster and more capable CF Express card, whereas  the 5D4 will use a Compact Flash card.

Also, the battery pack for the R5 is the same is the 5D4, which I understand is the same as the 5D3.

This appealed.

However, the cost was still going to be steep.

My local postie, who we had for 20+ years, a very friendly chap, I never realised he did wedding photography, and offered to show me his cameras, which are Nikon, and how he managed to make the change to mirrorless.

We both agreed, Nikon, Canon or any of the other big names, you can't really go wrong.

After a very interesting three hours and numerous cuppas, and some time handling his cameras in the garden, and to play safe, I sat down to use them rather than stand and risk falling or dropping them, I was nicely impressed with what I saw.

There are some trade offs and caveats with electronic view vs live view, but I'm not one to be negative. Obstacles are there to be beaten, not beat you.

The one big downside, if it is a downside, is video. The final quality is good, however, when panning a moving subject, there is a noticeable lag. But then I don't do much video, and to be honest, my current 5D4 has some lag, because that in video mode uses the large TTF screen and not the optical viewer, which is live view.

I said obstacles are to be beaten, not beat you.

The video quality is superb, and a bigger plus, the electronic viewfinder shows the same as the large TTF screen, but the big bonus with the EVF, is you block out all the viewing intrusions that using a TTF screen came impose.

There will be more to this no doubt, as I start a new journey mirrorless, and I will be happy to share.

However, it is costly, and to make things more costly than desired, my nearest emporium haven't stock of the R5, so I've had to order from elsewhere, and not being able to go far, that means no trade in of my 5D4, which if I'm honest, I am reluctant to part with.

The new camera is on order, and should be with me in the next couple of days, all I need  is for my leg to sort itself out.

  • PimperneBloke said:

    Hi John, and welcome.
    I shoot Nikon, and personally I don't use any usb cables for transferring data, I have a card reader that I plug my SD or CF Express card into, and then plug that in to the PC
    I think some folk on here are reticent about removing the memory cards so often, but I've had no issues (touch wood)

    Also, the biggest change for me wasn't dslr to mirrorless, but from crop sensor to full frame. Everything appearing so much further away was disorienting at first.

    Thank you for the welcome.

    Looking back through the thread, I see you have the Nikon Z7ii I did read about your move to mirrorless and what your considerations were and final choice, which is a good one, going full frame.

    I think it's personal preferance, whether to use the lead or to plug the expansion/SD card into a card slot.

    Did your's come with the standard USB connector?

    regards

    John

  • It might be worth working backwards from your end goal to help decide on equipment. Eg, Just displaying images on a screen/ internet has less exacting needs than printing photos out A3, so that may inform the body choice.
  • Bobs_Retired said:

    Hi and welcome.

    Re your point on lenses - now is actually a very good time to come across good quality used Canon EF lenses as more and more people are moving to mirrorless . Many those that changed to the first batch of mirrorless cameras but retained their EF lenses have now saved up enough to change to RF lenses, so more used EF lenses are becoming available.

    Since I bought my R3 I have only bought one RF lens (the 800mm f11) and still use my older EF lenses. For certain they are all heavier than RF lenses but having said that they also seem much more robust. 

    As for the cable I guess that's because more and more computers and laptops are coming fitted with only USB C ports only.   

    Hi Bob, and  thank you for the welcome.

    I was looking at replacing my 17-40, which was never a lens I used much, but that might change, and if I stay with Canon, keep the current lenses which seems a viable option with the RF/EF mount, I could buy the 15-35 and possibly the 800stm lens.

    I'm eager to play with new tech, as a retired project manager new tech was key to many businesses functions to stay afloat, its convincing my wife I'm making the right investment.

    Is your 800mm lens the STM or USM lens?

    regards

    John

  • Cheshire Lad said:

    Bobs_Retired said:

    Hi and welcome.

    Re your point on lenses - now is actually a very good time to come across good quality used Canon EF lenses as more and more people are moving to mirrorless . Many those that changed to the first batch of mirrorless cameras but retained their EF lenses have now saved up enough to change to RF lenses, so more used EF lenses are becoming available.

    Since I bought my R3 I have only bought one RF lens (the 800mm f11) and still use my older EF lenses. For certain they are all heavier than RF lenses but having said that they also seem much more robust. 

    As for the cable I guess that's because more and more computers and laptops are coming fitted with only USB C ports only.   

    Hi Bob, and  thank you for the welcome.

    I was looking at replacing my 17-40, which was never a lens I used much, but that might change, and if I stay with Canon, keep the current lenses which seems a viable option with the RF/EF mount, I could buy the 15-35 and possibly the 800stm lens.

    I'm eager to play with new tech, as a retired project manager new tech was key to many businesses functions to stay afloat, its convincing my wife I'm making the right investment.

    Is your 800mm lens the STM or USM lens?

    It's the RF 800 f11 STM. It has its advantages for reach and weight but obviously the big disadvantage is the f11 but in good light it's fine and makes a great addition to my set of lenses at what is a very reasonable cost for an 800mm lens. Obviously the way the full frames handle high ISO better is an advantage when using that lens.The main reason I haven't moved to the 100-500 RF lens is that I still treasure my Canon 300mm f2.8, which I normally use with a 1.4 TC  so effectively a 420mm f4 - so I prefer the light gathering capacity to the extra reach of the 100-500 at the moment though its a bit of a chunk to carry around. One day I might just go and see how much I can get for it against the 100-500 RF. I also have a Canon 70-200 f2.8 EF , a Canon 24-105 EF , a Canon 20mm f2.8 EFand a Sigma 100mm f2.8 macro EF lens- so really still using EF lenses for the major part of my hobby.

  • Unknown said:

    Canon have withdrawn from new supply many of the EF lenses, but as Bob mentions, there are loads around still with many good second hand options. What lens are you actually after? If you're not actually looking for anything specific, it doesn't matter if Canon have stopped making some :-)

    EF certainly works fine on the R bodies - I use a 600/4 and the Mk2 100-400 regularly on my R5, along with a Laowa macro probe lens, a Sigma macro & other bits & pieces. All are fine and there's no loss of quality as there's no glass in the EF/RF adapter, it's simply moving the lens away from the sensor to replicate the space the mirror box takes up in a DSLR. With your setup, I'd say the shortest route to an update would be to swap the Mk1 for a Mk2 100-400 (the Mk2 is a much better lens), but as a general rule, working out what your current setup is not doing for you is the main question to answer. Although I admit, I'm as susceptible to the allure of something new & shiny as the next person!

    Glad the GoA threads have been useful to you :-)

    As a retired project manager, I can understand why Canon are withdrawing the EF lenses. The move from film to digital, mirrors were still an integral part of the camera body, which isn't the case with mirrorless, therefore the adaptor is to accommodate that shorter focal distance.

    I lust over new tech, and we're never going to be too old to learn or play, I think that is all it is, the 5D is perfectly good, though a little highly hand polished, but still functions perfectly well, as do the lenses. It's filling the gap that was work and now retirement.

    I had noticed that Tamron and Sigma have RF mount lenses along with the fact their EF lenses will work using the RF/EF mount.

    regards

    John

  • PimperneBloke said:
    It might be worth working backwards from your end goal to help decide on equipment. Eg, Just displaying images on a screen/ internet has less exacting needs than printing photos out A3, so that may inform the body choice.

    I'm not totally sure if this is for me or the guy talking about the Sony.

    For me, I don't post online, I never really had the time or inclination. But the home has undergone some work and I feel a change of some wall pictures is long overdue. So I could be looking at canvass prints

    regards

    John

  • Bobs_Retired said:

    It's the RF 800 f11 STM. It has its advantages for reach and weight but obviously the big disadvantage is the f11 but in good light it's fine and makes a great addition to my set of lenses at what is a very reasonable cost for an 800mm lens. Obviously the way the full frames handle high ISO better is an advantage when using that lens.The main reason I haven't moved to the 100-500 RF lens is that I still treasure my Canon 300mm f2.8, which I normally use with a 1.4 TC  so effectively a 420mm f4 - so I prefer the light gathering capacity to the extra reach of the 100-500 at the moment though its a bit of a chunk to carry around. One day I might just go and see how much I can get for it against the 100-500 RF. I also have a Canon 70-200 f2.8 EF , a Canon 24-105 EF , a Canon 20mm f2.8 EFand a Sigma 100mm f2.8 macro EF lens- so really still using EF lenses for the major part of my hobby.

    Thank you for the reply Bob.

    I don't think I can convince my wife that I should part with £19k+ for the USM.

    regards

    John

  • Sorry, John, it was for you. If you're looking at wall prints you'll need maximum Megapixels in the body, or the images won't print well.
  • PimperneBloke said:
    Sorry, John, it was for you. If you're looking at wall prints you'll need maximum Megapixels in the body, or the images won't print well.

    That's fine, and yes, maximum pixels for wall prints, and for cropping, often required for wildlife.

    I had used a Bronica on loan from a lecturer, which was medium format film, to take a Lakedistrict landscape picture for my wife's parents, as university students long before any thoughts of settling down. That was a real lesson in photography, and the lecturer introduced me to photo labs for large printing.

    regards

    John

  • Well folks, I've gone mirrorless.

    After selling off some surplus kit, and raiding my piggy bank, I finally bought a Canon R7 from HDEW cameras. £1299 got me the body plus EF-R adapter, along with a £50 cashback.

    I hooked up my Sigma 150-600mm contemporary, and off I went.

    Working my way through settings to best suit my way of photography, but at the same time modifying how I shoot to make best use of the new technology e.g. I turn AI tracking on and off frequently depending on what I am photographing. Interesting tome of a user manual. Well over 900 pages long.  Need a university degree course to fully understand all the settings :-0

    I posted some shots of a fox in the Odds and Sods thread. The fox was in our garden, and I reeled off a few shots through double glazing. Impressive low light performance with excellent detail and sharpness over more of a subject than my Canon 80D managed.

    Frustratingly, just as I get my R7 there is little around my garden to photograph - they're all busily breeding.

    However, this *** keeps lurking around, so it was used for practice. Colours came out very well, even through double glazing.

     

    Low light performance beats my old Canon 80D

    90% luck, 5% field craft, 5% camera skills.