dakphotoman wrote:
I am surprised that other brands have not done something similar. I just watched a really good photographer doing a "post-processing" video on YouTube. One his most important steps was to make sure you remove the dust spots in your shot. The shot must have had 4 or 5 spots and I was quite surprised until I realized he shoots Sony. In 2 years with my Canon R, I can't remember having any dust spots, although I probably had a few that I didn't notice and were shaken off the next time I turned off the camera.
dakphotoman wrote:
I agree with your assessment of the Canon RF lens lineup so far - but if you don't mind buying used lenses and using the adapter, the EF lenses that you can get for your R5 are often top of the line "L" lenses and very affordable. When I bought my Canon R, I had only one RF lens and my other lenses were all used EF "L" lenses purchased from the various used outlets. It's worth considering, in my opinion.
IMO, it is going to become a standard feature in most modern MILC going forward. We see it in Canon and Sony's new camera systems now and I am sure Nikon will follow suit once they start to catch up and see that it's a standard feature in their competitors lineup. Customers will definitely ask for it if they don't include it automatically - so it's inevitable. It's one of those features that make people go, "Why hasn't that always been a thing?" like you indicated in your post.
I definitely don't mind using EF lenses and in fact am picking up a few of them as we speak but it's just a perfect culmination of events that has made the whole process of getting into a new system way harder than I am used to historically. The pandemic and the related supply shortages, a bunch of new modern cameras being released creating demand, a lack of comparable lenses for the new mounts, and how effectively the old lenses work on the new cameras are all leading to making it really difficult to find lenses to use unless you're willing to pay higher prices than usual.
It's understandable, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating. Anyways, it'll sort itself out in time. Just got to have patience.
In my 8-year hiatus with Olympus I’ve not had to clean my sensor even once. It’s always perfectly clean. And it’s been good with my R5 so far. One stubborn spot did appear for a number of shoots but it eventually disappeared.
dakphotoman wrote:
I am surprised that other brands have not done something similar. I just watched a really good photographer doing a "post-processing" video on YouTube. One his most important steps was to make sure you remove the dust spots in your shot. The shot must have had 4 or 5 spots and I was quite surprised until I realized he shoots Sony. In 2 years with my Canon R, I can't remember having any dust spots, although I probably had a few that I didn't notice and were shaken off the next time I turned off the camera.
bobbytan wrote:
In my 8-year hiatus with Olympus I’ve not had to clean my sensor even once. It’s always perfectly clean. And it’s been good with my R5 so far. One stubborn spot did appear for a number of shoots but it eventually disappeared.
I agree that Canon's dust removal is much, much better than Sonys and almost on par with Olympus. I also never had dust on my Olympus cameras when I shot m4/3. I had tons of dust to deal with on Sony. Regular rocket blower sessions, occasional physical cleanings needed. With the Canon bodies it's been almost perfectly clean. Had a few spots that I needed to blow off, but very rare, and usually that was only one speck.
TarHoya wrote:
The two factors working against Canon with third-party RF lenses right now is that they are closed mount systems, so the lens mounts need to be reverse engineered, and they also still have robust DSLR user-bases that are buying EF-mount lenses, so there is a calculus that has to be made for when it makes sense financially to both invest in developing the mount and reduce manufacturing capacity of EF-mount lenses to start manufacturing RF-mount lenses. The same obviously also applies to Nikon and the F-mount to Z-mount transition.
The silver lining is that since Sigma and Tamron now have lines of lenses being developed specifically for mirrorless cameras, it should hopefully be relatively easy to release RF-mount versions once they do reverse engineer the mount and make the decision to commit manufacturing capacity to the lenses. ...Show more →
Pretty sure the third party lens companies are hard at work on developing lenses for the main brands. The only exceptions will be Leica, which you will only get in the L mount and thus only on Sigma, Panasonic and Leica cameras, and Zeiss, which doesn't reverse engineer its lenses and if you want AF, you have to buy Sony. They may develop MF versions for the Z and RF mounts of their DSLR lens lines, I guess. As a Zeiss fan, I did pick up two EF-mount Zeiss lenses (21mm and 135mm) for decent prices and they work great with the MF setup the R5 uses for EF-mount lenses. They're heavy, however, compared to the Batis and Loxia lines for Sony.
I inadvertently switched from Sony APS-C system to Canon FF due to a chance circumstance, as I was considering moving from Sony APS-C to Sony FF. It was the right timing because the EF lens ecosystem has peaked, with many moving over to RF and therefore, selling their EF lens for someone like me just getting into the system. One day, I'll move to RF and be able to sell to someone else looking to get into the EF mount...
I can totally relate to your issues with ergonomics. As a big guy myself, my large hands need more room between the grip and the lens tangent, and with the A7R4 I found myself growing tired of the constant rubbing. It certainly is subjective and like a small car, it's not for everyone. I ended up selling off my Sony kit, not because I didn't like the gear - I did - but I simply wanted a more comfortable grip, and, it was a good excuse to give the Leica SL a try. I would certainly consider an R5, along with the RF 24-70, RF 70-200 and the RF 100-500 it would make for an excellent kit!
johnvanr wrote:
Pretty sure the third party lens companies are hard at work on developing lenses for the main brands. The only exceptions will be Leica, which you will only get in the L mount and thus only on Sigma, Panasonic and Leica cameras, and Zeiss, which doesn't reverse engineer its lenses and if you want AF, you have to buy Sony. They may develop MF versions for the Z and RF mounts of their DSLR lens lines, I guess. As a Zeiss fan, I did pick up two EF-mount Zeiss lenses (21mm and 135mm) for decent prices and they work great with the MF setup the R5 uses for EF-mount lenses. They're heavy, however, compared to the Batis and Loxia lines for Sony....Show more →
I don’t doubt Sigma is hard at work on part one of that equation (reverse engineering the RF mount to develop lenses for it), but Sigma said in January that they were basically in a holding pattern right now because they were still doing enough EF mount sales that it doesn’t make sense to pull manufacturing capacity away from EF to start manufacturing RF mount lenses. That is a constantly evolving calculus, but I am curious if Canon aggressively discontinuing EF lenses is going to slow down or speed up Sigma making the jump to RF.
dhphoto wrote:
If I weren't right at the end of my career I expect I'd try Canon mirrorless but I am so invested in dslr's and EF lenses I can't be bothered.
My only similar experience was with my Eos M5, which I really do not like at all.
Unless you are doing BIF there is no need to go mirrorless - between 5DSR and 5DIV - the system is awesome.
I bought the R5 even though I did not really need it and did not like the AA. And I am really happy with the weight reduction (vs 5dsr) and flip in adapter that lets me use TS lens, UWA lens without carring tonnes of filters - that made it worhthwhile all by itself. The battery life is considerably diminished but okay.
So if you can hold out a year or two (and that should be easy with DSLR choices) the R5 refurbished or the R5SR100mpx (hope) will be great and works seamlessly with EF.
Scott Stoness wrote:
Unless you are doing BIF there is no need to go mirrorless - between 5DSR and 5DIV - the system is awesome.
I bought the R5 even though I did not really need it and did not like the AA. And I am really happy with the weight reduction (vs 5dsr) and flip in adapter that lets me use TS lens, UWA lens without carring tonnes of filters - that made it worhthwhile all by itself. The battery life is considerably diminished but okay.
So if you can hold out a year or two (and that should be easy with DSLR choices) the R5 refurbished or the R5SR100mpx (hope) will be great and works seamlessly with EF....Show more →
If I'm honest after a working life in photography I'm getting really rather bored of it. I simply don't have GAS any longer because I'm not earning the money to pay for the gear.
There's nothing I actually need, but from what I see, far from being relegated by cellphone cameras the modern camera gear is astonishingly good from all manufacturers. People are nitpicking tiny differences, they're all brilliant cameras.
Young photographers are very lucky, except they have to be astonishingly good to stand out from the crowd now.
Jman13 wrote:
I agree that Canon's dust removal is much, much better than Sonys and almost on par with Olympus. I also never had dust on my Olympus cameras when I shot m4/3. I had tons of dust to deal with on Sony. Regular rocket blower sessions, occasional physical cleanings needed. With the Canon bodies it's been almost perfectly clean. Had a few spots that I needed to blow off, but very rare, and usually that was only one speck.
I've struggled to understand the Sony dust complaints since using the system beginning in May 2018. I've yet to find more than a single spec of dust at a time. All removed with Rocket Blower. I've never wet swabbed a Sony sensor. I often wet swabbed my oil bath 1DX and 1DXII sensors and all my CaNikon DSLRs for that matter. I probably Rocket blow my Sony sensor once every 2-3 months when I happen to spot a spot in the EVF while stopped down. I had no issues with dust on my R5 either.
Now maybe it is because I shoot wide open between f/4 and f/9 all the time. Maybe if I delved into landscapes much more stopped down I'd see what people always are talking about? But I periodically stop down to f/22 just to check and I don't see anything. I change TCs all the time out in the field with camera powered on (so not even making use of the shutter close on my A9II/A1/R5).
I'm not saying I don't believe other's experiences, just that I struggle to understand what I'm doing differently to not see the dust problems regularly reported by Sony users.
I do wonder if my having only owned the most recent bodies is part of it and it was worse on the earlier generations?
TarHoya wrote:
I don’t doubt Sigma is hard at work on part one of that equation (reverse engineering the RF mount to develop lenses for it), but Sigma said in January that they were basically in a holding pattern right now because they were still doing enough EF mount sales that it doesn’t make sense to pull manufacturing capacity away from EF to start manufacturing RF mount lenses. That is a constantly evolving calculus, but I am curious if Canon aggressively discontinuing EF lenses is going to slow down or speed up Sigma making the jump to RF.
I'm sure they know what they're doing, but as long as EF is the only choice, of course they're still going to sell EF lenses. Once they start selling fewer EF lenses, it will be a sign that Canon users no longer desire Sigma lenses at all. That seems like a dangerous game for a manufacturer to take. Why wait until your customers abandon your products for alternatives before you decide you want to try to win them back? Seems like they've been taking lessons from the Canon management school.
A lot depends on how often you change lenses and how long your sensor is exposed. Also, the air quality (dust level) in your area is a huge factor. Places like Los Angeles is hotter and a lot more polluted than most places in Canada. We have smog, dust, pollen, other pollutants in the air, and haze or heat shimmer, etc. They all present a problem and contribute to poorer IQ.
arbitrage wrote:
I've struggled to understand the Sony dust complaints since using the system beginning in May 2018. I've yet to find more than a single spec of dust at a time. All removed with Rocket Blower. I've never wet swabbed a Sony sensor. I often wet swabbed my oil bath 1DX and 1DXII sensors and all my CaNikon DSLRs for that matter. I probably Rocket blow my Sony sensor once every 2-3 months when I happen to spot a spot in the EVF while stopped down. I had no issues with dust on my R5 either.
Now maybe it is because I shoot wide open between f/4 and f/9 all the time. Maybe if I delved into landscapes much more stopped down I'd see what people always are talking about? But I periodically stop down to f/22 just to check and I don't see anything. I change TCs all the time out in the field with camera powered on (so not even making use of the shutter close on my A9II/A1/R5).
I'm not saying I don't believe other's experiences, just that I struggle to understand what I'm doing differently to not see the dust problems regularly reported by Sony users.
I do wonder if my having only owned the most recent bodies is part of it and it was worse on the earlier generations?...Show more →
I shoot more landscape, and lens changes probably have a lot to do with it. If I go out to shoot for 2 hours, I'll probably change lenses 7-8 times or more. If you go out birding for 2 hours, you might not change lenses ever. Plus the smaller apertures.
arbitrage wrote:
I've struggled to understand the Sony dust complaints since using the system beginning in May 2018. I've yet to find more than a single spec of dust at a time. All removed with Rocket Blower. I've never wet swabbed a Sony sensor. I often wet swabbed my oil bath 1DX and 1DXII sensors and all my CaNikon DSLRs for that matter. I probably Rocket blow my Sony sensor once every 2-3 months when I happen to spot a spot in the EVF while stopped down. I had no issues with dust on my R5 either.
Now maybe it is because I shoot wide open between f/4 and f/9 all the time. Maybe if I delved into landscapes much more stopped down I'd see what people always are talking about? But I periodically stop down to f/22 just to check and I don't see anything. I change TCs all the time out in the field with camera powered on (so not even making use of the shutter close on my A9II/A1/R5).
I'm not saying I don't believe other's experiences, just that I struggle to understand what I'm doing differently to not see the dust problems regularly reported by Sony users.
I do wonder if my having only owned the most recent bodies is part of it and it was worse on the earlier generations?...Show more →
arbitrage wrote:
I've struggled to understand the Sony dust complaints since using the system beginning in May 2018. I've yet to find more than a single spec of dust at a time. All removed with Rocket Blower. I've never wet swabbed a Sony sensor. I often wet swabbed my oil bath 1DX and 1DXII sensors and all my CaNikon DSLRs for that matter. I probably Rocket blow my Sony sensor once every 2-3 months when I happen to spot a spot in the EVF while stopped down. I had no issues with dust on my R5 either.
Now maybe it is because I shoot wide open between f/4 and f/9 all the time. Maybe if I delved into landscapes much more stopped down I'd see what people always are talking about? But I periodically stop down to f/22 just to check and I don't see anything. I change TCs all the time out in the field with camera powered on (so not even making use of the shutter close on my A9II/A1/R5).
I'm not saying I don't believe other's experiences, just that I struggle to understand what I'm doing differently to not see the dust problems regularly reported by Sony users.
I do wonder if my having only owned the most recent bodies is part of it and it was worse on the earlier generations?...Show more →
Living on Vancouver Island may have something to do with lack of dust.
mogul wrote:
Living on Vancouver Island may have something to do with lack of dust.
And maybe Vancouver Island has a form of dust called pollen. And we happen to have so much pollen because we have so many different trees growing here, instead of sagebrush and dry land. So there is just as much chance of getting dust in the form of pollen on your sensor here as there is of getting dust on your sensor in California or Arizona.
Most bird photographers do not change lenses during a shoot. If they have more than 1 birding lens they would usually decide which lens to take and go with that one lens. If they take a 2nd body along for the shoot they would have like a 600 prime on 1 body and a 100-400 on the other body. The lenses do not come off the camera.
Jman13 wrote:
I shoot more landscape, and lens changes probably have a lot to do with it. If I go out to shoot for 2 hours, I'll probably change lenses 7-8 times or more. If you go out birding for 2 hours, you might not change lenses ever. Plus the smaller apertures.
Regarding dust on sensor, I do sometimes get dust on the sensor. I don't know if other camera brand get less dust on the sensor. I have multiple lenses and I probably change lenses more than many other people. When I change lens, I always hold my camera upside down while the mount is open so reduce the chance of getting dust on the sensor. That said, if I find dust marks in the images later, I have no hard time to clean that out in PP. It is probably the easiest task to do in PP.
It's still cool to have a camera that covers the sensor when no lens is mounted.
Jman13 wrote:
I shoot more landscape, and lens changes probably have a lot to do with it. If I go out to shoot for 2 hours, I'll probably change lenses 7-8 times or more. If you go out birding for 2 hours, you might not change lenses ever. Plus the smaller apertures.
No I don't usually change things that often. This morning I shot birds from 6:30 till 11. I changed off a 1.4TC, then back on later, then swapped to a 2xTC, then back to the 1.4, then I put the 600GM in the bag (Arms were getting tired) and swapped on the 200-600. So five sensor exposures in the morning. That is probably about the most I'd ever do. Some days like yesterday I think I swapped only once from 2.0 to 1.4. I'm also pretty quick at the swaps because I love that right side lens release button
As others mention we may have nicer air here also. But Tony is correct in that we are weeks away from me tearing my eyes out with my pollen allergies
Worst thing about Canon is price. It’s worse than it appears, as I can’t use Sigma glass to save 60 percent. Bought a LOT of 2x and 3x price RF equivalents. Yeah, they're nice, and have amazing stabilization a couple stops better than Sony stuff, but sheesh.
I’ve always disagreed with Arb on ergs. Sony is more terrible than even reputation imho. Definitely a personal thing.
I also find dust a non-issue on Canon and mildly annoying on Sony. But I swap lenses frequently and do narrow aperture stuff.
AF is now about equivalent, maybe slightly better on Canon for the moment. Haven’t tried a1 yet. I recently bought 8 used 6d and 5diii cameras for a wildlife remote project. Was shocked how bad the old ef af was. Was happy with it back in the day. We are quite spoiled now.
SPS was a fail for me. Their site ate my app. Took a year+ to get someone there to fix it. Of course, that’s just anecdotal. CPS has been great for me, although Arb is right on terseness of repair explanations.
Upshot: in the long term, Canon is going to have more integrated glass, using comms features and computational stuff, along with cooperative stabilization. This will matter more and more. That 85 f/1.2 you tried out is awesome in part because there is an accelerometer in the barrel that feeds additional information to the body, allowing 7 stops of real stabilization. I carried around a monopod with my Sony a9ii, but I don’t bother with the R5. Canon's stuff will be high touch and expensive, and sometimes quite late to market. Canon will be like Apple, where it’s quite integrated, but you lose out on price and being able to exploit 3rd party stuff, some of which is unparalleled (still miss my Sigma 35mm f/1.2).
Sony designs some of its glass, but farms out still more to third parties, and most is manufactured out of house. It’s great stuff, but earns less research priority vs sensor and bodies. The firm (was a client of mine years ago) is less well integrated generally, and it’s imaging product managers don’t control as wide a swathe of departments that contribute to integrated solutions. This could change, but culturally, the firms are different. Visibility into this is difficult because the decisions are made in Japan, and our US divisions are just sales and service organizations, largely.
I think you should rent an R5. You’ll mostly know what’s right for you after the first day. But also check out the higher end e mount bodies to make a fair comparison.
