R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

sebjmatthews wrote:
FWIW, later this year I'm going to be going on a long trip overseas..., and I'm not even considering the R5. I'll be taking either the R50, a Fujifilm X-T30 II, or an Olympus E-P7. For 'travel', and general photography, all three of them are preferable to the R5. I imagine the R10 would be, too.

So assuming the R50 or R10, I'd be curious what lenses you would be using. For important travel I use my R5 with the RF 24-105 + etc. I don't know what RF-S lenses can compete. The RF 18-150 is nice but can't compare with the L really.

Jul 07, 2024 at 07:43 PM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

the size difference of the 18-150 vs any comparable native RF glass is huge. I guess the 24-105 non-L isn't a whole lot bigger, but it's also way shorter effective FL. I am very excited to start shooting the 18-150 on the R50/R7 I have on the way, it'll be an awesome travel zoom.

Jul 08, 2024 at 08:12 PM

sebjmatthews
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

Jeff Nolten wrote:
So assuming the R50 or R10, I'd be curious what lenses you would be using. For important travel I use my R5 with the RF 24-105 + etc. I don't know what RF-S lenses can compete. The RF 18-150 is nice but can't compare with the L really.
If I take the R50, it'll be the 28mm f/2.8 and 18-45, unless Canon hurries up and rereleases the EF-M 22mm f/2 as an RF-S lens. Right now I'm leaning towards the Fuji or Olympus simply because they have more & faster pancake primes; I prefer Canon's UI, but they're woefully behind everyone else in small lenses.
As far as I care, if I can't easily get it in and out of a general-purpose shoulder bag (not a specific camera bag) with one hand, it's not a travel option. A travel camera/lens should enhance the experience, not hinder or distract from it. I used to love the EF 24-105 f/4L and EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 back when they were basically the only options for those mounts, but I wouldn't consider them for a second now.
I've shot enough with everything from the worst compact lenses imaginable (1960s third party pancakes get downright bizarre) right up to the gigantic dream lenses some people can't even believe exist (Canon CN20x50 and EF 1200mm f/5.6), to know that when I'm in a new place, seeing things for the first time and desperately trying to remember how to ask for directions, camera size is far more important than how the innards work.

I love my R5 with the 15-30 (yeah, I don't shoot wide often), 50/1.2, 100/2.8, 28-70/2, 70-200/2.8, 100-400, 300/2.8, 600/4, and I'm keen for the 200-800 to finally come in stock so I can slap that on it as well. But I'm never taking it out of the country again.

Jul 10, 2024 at 10:41 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

sebjmatthews wrote:
If I take the R50, it'll be the 28mm f/2.8 and 18-45, unless Canon hurries up and rereleases the EF-M 22mm f/2 as an RF-S lens. Right now I'm leaning towards the Fuji or Olympus simply because they have more & faster pancake primes; I prefer Canon's UI, but they're woefully behind everyone else in small lenses.
As far as I care, if I can't easily get it in and out of a general-purpose shoulder bag (not a specific camera bag) with one hand, it's not a travel option. A travel camera/lens should enhance the experience, not hinder or distract from...Show more →

The R5 doesn't look so bad, it's actually a bit lighter than an older body I've been using. But those lenses, other than 100/2.8 & 100-400 (if its Rf) are pretty huge. 15-30 is close to 2.5lbs!

Jul 11, 2024 at 10:57 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

AmbientMike wrote:
The R5 doesn't look so bad, it's actually a bit lighter than an older body I've been using. But those lenses, other than 100/2.8 & 100-400 (if its Rf) are pretty huge. 15-30 is close to 2.5lbs!

The RF 15-30 is 390 grams or 0.9lbs
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1624
I have it and is a pretty good lens, aside from being slow.
were you looking at the 15-35 / 2.8 ? Its close to 2lbs

I usually bring r8 450grams, RF STM 24-105 390grams, and RF 16 190grams when weight matters. But sometimes if I know what I am shooting I would just bring r8 450 grams and RF 15-30 390grams.

Edited on Jul 11, 2024 at 11:42 AM · View previous versions

Jul 11, 2024 at 11:36 AM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

AmbientMike wrote:
The R5 doesn't look so bad, it's actually a bit lighter than an older body I've been using. But those lenses, other than 100/2.8 & 100-400 (if its Rf) are pretty huge. 15-30 is close to 2.5lbs!

I've been carrying a 5 series with 24-105 and 100-400 Ls since the original 5D so I'm used to the weight. The same R5 kit with RF 24-105 and 100-500 Ls weighs noticably less. 2 lbs more so if you use the RF 100-400. And the R5's cropping ability is equivalent to adding a 1.4x to the 5D4. Cropping also means one can carry the 16 f2.8 instead of the 15-35 L for more weight savings. The R5 + 24-105 L is pretty hard to give up for important travel

Still ...

ISO1600 wrote:
the size difference of the 18-150 vs any comparable native RF glass is huge. I guess the 24-105 non-L isn't a whole lot bigger, but it's also way shorter effective FL. I am very excited to start shooting the 18-150 on the R50/R7 I have on the way, it'll be an awesome travel zoom.

I got the RF 18-150 as part of a kit with the R7. I figured the lens would be my wife's travel lens but I've been surprised how sharp and useful it is. It focuses very close up to 60 mm where it is still f5.6 and its 240 mm equivalent reach if very useful. An R7 + RF 10-18, 18-150, 100-400 kit weighs 3.7 lbs and will give one great pictures. I have and like all three lenses. Add a 24, 28, 35, or 50 STM prime for some better low light ability. I purchased the 24 f1.8 macro with the R7 in mind.

I'm looking forward to trying the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 to see how it fits in the mix. Also looking forward to the Sigma 56 f1.4 which was really nice on the M. Maybe a two R7 travel kit is in my wife and my future.

Light weight quality is an option IMHO.

Jul 11, 2024 at 11:38 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

Scott Stoness wrote:
The RF 15-30 is 390 grams or 0.9lbs
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1624
I have it and is a pretty good lens, aside from being slow.
were you looking at the 15-35 / 2.8 ? Its close to 2lbs

I usually bring r8 450grams, RF STM 24-105 390grams, and RF 16 190grams when weight matters. But sometimes if I know what I am shooting I would just bring r8 450 grams and RF 15-30 390grams.

Ohhh, OK, I thought he meant 15-30/2.8 Tamron, probably meant the Canon, though. I've used rebel + 18-55 + 55-250 pretty happily, of course prefer to have uwa, could probably add some flavor of 50/1.8 & 70-200/4 to 15-30 & be very happy, even just adapting EF

Jul 11, 2024 at 12:22 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

Jeff Nolten wrote:
I've been carrying a 5 series with 24-105 and 100-400 Ls since the original 5D so I'm used to the weight. The same R5 kit with RF 24-105 and 100-500 Ls weighs noticably less. 2 lbs more so if you use the RF 100-400. And the R5's cropping ability is equivalent to adding a 1.4x to the 5D4. Cropping also means one can carry the 16 f2.8 instead of the 15-35 L for more weight savings. The R5 + 24-105 L is pretty hard to give up for important travel

Still ...

I got the RF 18-150 as part of a...Show more →

I used to use 11-16 & 17-35 Sigma, on aps, definitely a bit on the heavy side, but not too bad, really, even on x0D. Sometimes I take 180 Tamron, 18-55 + 55-250 on a Rebel is really light, though, 29-400 ff equivalent and bigger sensor than 1" p&s.

The 55-250's I've used fill the frame on about the same subjects 1:2 macro lenses used to on film, and 400mm ff equivalent! Great hiking lens, 88-400 ff equivalent at under 1 lb! Even the 18-55's get really close macro, although may need to be stopped down, you really don't have to run out and buy a macro lens on aps.

Jul 11, 2024 at 12:31 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · R5 17mp Crop files vs R10/R50 sensor

I still have my 55-250 which I used to use a lot with the Rebels and the M6II. The RF-S 55-210 is almost an embarrassment by comparison. It is 1/4 lb lighter though. Adapted, the 55-250 doesn't save enough weight over the RF 100-400 that I expect I'll use it much. The RF 100-400 and even 100-500 feel comfortable on the R7 where the 55-250, adapted, was as much as the M6II could take in my hands. The 77D was good with the 70-300 II. In my kit the R7 has replaced the M, 77D, and 90D.

Jul 11, 2024 at 02:54 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.