I find this a very interesting thread. I have to smile when I think of my other hobbies, ham radio, computers, tractors. . . we could substitute 'latest transceiver' for 'camera body' or 'latest cpu / gpu' or 'bigger horsepower or bigger 3 point implement'. Its the same question Similar discussions go on those forums also (as well as car and motorcycle forums I used to be active on).
I don't feel like I have to justify my buying decisions to anyone. I don't judge anyone's decisions. I think the OP should decide what is important to him. I'm pretty sure its not going to be the same as what's important to me (or anyone else on this forum).
If you are ok with a KIA and don't want a Porche, good on you.
Personally, I have more money than sense and bought way more quality gear than my limited abilities or willingness to learn.
I know several photographers personally (and there are hundreds I don't know) that can take better pictures with your gear than with mine.
I have 5k in gear to take crappy shots of my kids. I love the details and autofocus, but the prints aren't much better than the ten year old camera I upgraded from.
I just don't think it matters, unless you have a specific reason to upgrade, don't. My reasons for upgrading were 1.) I hate money and want to get rid of it, and 2.) Eye tracking is neat.
Otherwise, I shoot in jpg and at a low setting at that. To each his own.
I do like knowing that even if I had all the money I ever wanted, I'd still have essentially the same kit and still take ho hum pictures that I like.
Cliff L. wrote:
Certainly none with such mediocre image quality...
I think that was the DSLR that finally made me make the leap to mirrorless.
The 24mp SL2 is <15g heavier than the 16mp X-T1 in the photo you posted, and the 24mp X-T2 & X-T3 are actually heavier than the SL2. The mirrorless lens in you photo is also heavier, also I don't believe Fuji has a 55-250 equivalent
I'm not sure of the reason you posted a photo of 2 completely different cameras and lenses than I mentioned to illustrate your point. BTW I've used 18mp aps a ton, I'm not sure what problems you had but it was pretty good imo
chez wrote:
Let’s try to keep the resulting image quality in the same ball field. I’m sure there are OM systems smaller than your SL2 yet deliver a much better resulting image. We can get into the all in one camera lens setup that are extremely light, but I don’t believe we are talking reducing weight / bulk at all costs.
If you think m4/3 beats aps, you could tell the Sony board to ditch their A6xxx series for it, like you've basically done here. Good idea, huh? Doubt there's much difference between a lot of the 24-26mp aps across price points
You can see all of the available (usually...) lenses for the Fujiflm APS-C system here.
There is no 55-250, though there are 55-200 and 70-300 lenses. Canon APS-C cameras have a 1.6x crop factor so a given focal length has a slightly narrower angle of view than it would have on Fujifilm's larger 1.5x APS-C bodies, so the 70-300mm is quite close... and it is a fairly well-regarded lens, too, and one this is relatively light and which packs small.
If you are going to compare something from Fujifilm to the low-end SL bodies from Canon, it would not be the XT line — actually I'd argue that the XE bodies would be more comparable. They are smaller, lighter, and quite inexpensive — and they have the same sensors as their more expensive Fujifilm x-trans kin.
In the end, use whatever you prefer as long as it works for your purposes. I know people who have liked the SL bodies for certain purposes, while others would be unhappy with them.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You can see all of the available (usually...) lenses for the Fujiflm APS-C system here.
There is no 55-250, though there are 55-200 and 70-300 lenses. Canon APS-C cameras have a 1.6x crop factor so a given focal length has a slightly narrower angle of view than it would have on Fujifilm's larger 1.5x APS-C bodies, so the 70-300mm is quite close... and it is a fairly well-regarded lens, too, and one this is relatively light and which packs small.
If you are going to compare something from Fujifilm to the low-end SL bodies from Canon, it would not be the XT line — actually I'd argue that the XE bodies would be more comparable. They are smaller, lighter, and quite inexpensive — and they have the same sensors as their more expensive Fujifilm x-trans kin.
In the end, use whatever you prefer as long as it works for your purposes. I know people who have liked the SL bodies for certain purposes, while others would be unhappy with them....Show more →
There is really not a 55-250 equivalent, though. 70-300 is ~50% heavier, 55-200 shorter and not a fav on the Fuji board, really. Mediocre reviews
You have to get X-E3 or X-E4 to get 24-26mp, I hate to go by cost, often not a good reason to do things, but here goes: a lot of complaints on X-E4 prices, X-E3 isn't that cheap, and you can buy SL2 + 10-18, 18-55, & 55-250, used, for used X-E3 or new 70-300
re 5dsr - I mainly shoot studio (fashion etc) or landscape / seascape….and print to A2.
I think for your main usage the 5dsr is a better body than R5/5II.
More mpx, no aa, and I just like the files better for sharpening.
I had the 5dsr for 4 years or so and loved it except for weight and wildlife (was okay).
The only possible knocks on 5dsr is R5 with EF is better for filters, and the new RF STM lens are really nice for backpacking/landscape.
The r5 has the best high ISO performance, but high ISO is not your need.
The r5 has the best fps (variable, faster, pre capture) but none of this is useful for your purposes.
The r5 and r5ii are way better for 8k or 4k (Clog3, Clog2) but this is not your purpose.
I really like the RF 200-800 but I have yet to find any short mm lens that are better for landscape, seascape, studio.
The EF-RF adapter really works well with EF lens. It has made my 600v2, 200-400 even better.
I really like the variable adapter, it makes it unnecessary for lots of filters. This has made my ts17/24 better. For you uses this would be the only big benefit of R5 or R5ii.
I really like the very low weight RF 16/2.8 (190g) 15-30 (<400g) 24-105(400g) and 100-400 but unless you need lighter for backpacking, you don't need it anyway.
If I were you I would not move up to RF system until canon makes a high >80 mpx body.
p.2 #10 · The gear we can make the most of........
gdanmitchell wrote:
You get what you pay for.
Then I guess you should quit screwing around with your Fuji and get an R5II or R1, according to that logic. But don't get it on sale, pay full price. Makes it better, doesn't it?
p.2 #11 · The gear we can make the most of........
Right, MIke. Whatever you say… ;-)
Jun 12, 2025 at 09:35 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #12 · The gear we can make the most of........
It's completely pathetic.
I made a positive comment and recommendation on Canon, on the Canon board, and no less than 4 people have showed up to basically argue and/or tell me I'm wrong. None of which have actually managed to come up with a lighter suggestion or solution
But push your favorite (heavier) brand, on different board no less, and tell me I'm the one being argumentative. Completely ridiculous
p.2 #13 · The gear we can make the most of........
Mike, try actually READING what I wrote. I reported that several well-regarded professional photographers I know used to use the SL models as lightweight travel cameras. I provided more information about Fujifilm’s lens offerings in response to your post on the subject. I correctly pointed out that comparing the XT model to the SL isn’t quite a direct comparison and suggested that you might compare to a model from lower in the Fujifilm lineup.
In fact, you ARE being argumentative.
Your SL is fine for you. No one says otherwise. It could be fine for some others, too. But it isn’t the only answer. Heck, there are other options from Canon that could work, too, including the lovely little M bodies. Sony and Canon and others also have interesting options.
p.2 #14 · The gear we can make the most of........
AmbientMike wrote:
I'm not sure of the reason you posted a photo of 2 completely different cameras and lenses than I mentioned to illustrate your point. BTW I've used 18mp aps a ton, I'm not sure what problems you had but it was pretty good imo
Those were the only cameras I still had photos of, and there wasn't much difference compared to the later models. You don't seem to know much about the Fuji system, or you'd know they had a couple of lenses similar to the cheap Canon 55-250mm zoom.
Ironically, that photo was for an old post I made touting the Canon over the then-new mirrorless cameras. I have to laugh at how naive I was back then...
p.2 #16 · The gear we can make the most of........
well69 wrote:
I wish. I paid a lot and all I got was the ability to take crappy pictures faster.
Heh. It happens. ;-)
Jun 12, 2025 at 11:27 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #17 · The gear we can make the most of........
Cliff L. wrote:
Those were the only cameras I still had photos of, and there wasn't much difference compared to the later models. You don't seem to know much about the Fuji system, or you'd know they had a couple of lenses similar to the cheap Canon 55-250mm zoom.
Ironically, that photo was for an old post I made touting the Canon over the then-new mirrorless cameras. I have to laugh at how naive I was back then...
I know the 55-200 gets mediocre reviews and is 300mm ff equivalent vs 400mm ff equivalent of the 55-250 on Canon. The 70-300 is much heavier and more expensive. But tell me the lens i missed, since I don't know anything.
I've used 18mp a lot, 18-55 quite a bit, I doubt the 16mp Fuji is much if any better. I'd be curious the issues you had and might be able to give you pointers
Jun 14, 2025 at 11:13 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #18 · The gear we can make the most of........
gdanmitchell wrote:
Mike, try actually READING what I wrote. I reported that several well-regarded professional photographers I know used to use the SL models as lightweight travel cameras. I provided more information about Fujifilm’s lens offerings in response to your post on the subject. I correctly pointed out that comparing the XT model to the SL isn’t quite a direct comparison and suggested that you might compare to a model from lower in the Fujifilm lineup.
In fact, you ARE being argumentative.
Your SL is fine for you. No one says otherwise. It could be fine for some others, too. But it isn’t the only answer. Heck, there are other options from Canon that could work, too, including the lovely little M bodies. Sony and Canon and others also have interesting options....Show more →
Imagine that. 4 people disagreed , even though no one can come up with a lighter solution, and i got argumentative. In spite of this, you aren't griping at them, and are part of the problem
p.2 #19 · The gear we can make the most of........
Mike, you still have not apparently actually read my posts. However, your enthusiasm for being personally offended by… everything… remains impressive.
Honestly, it is almost like you come to the forum looking for opportunities to take a deep personal offense at the least disagreement with anything you way.
One wonders whether ANY response to your thoughts other than, “Yes, Mike, you are absolutely correct about everything you say, and I’m terribly sorry for being so silly as to hold a different opinion!” would satisfy you.
p.2 #20 · The gear we can make the most of........
AmbientMike wrote:
I know the 55-200 gets mediocre reviews and is 300mm ff equivalent vs 400mm ff equivalent of the 55-250 on Canon. The 70-300 is much heavier and more expensive. But tell me the lens i missed, since I don't know anything.
You forgot the Fuji 50-230. It and the excellent 55-200 are much, much better than the Canon 55-250 regardless of which Fuji body they are used on. You could easily crop the images from the Fuji 55-200 to match the framing of the Canon lens, and the Fuji results would still be significantly sharper.
Similar discussions go on those forums also (as well as car and motorcycle forums I used to be active on).