TS17 (shift ultra wide) , TS24 (shift wide), and 24-105/f4v1 (general) are my go to lens for landscape.
Laowa 12 (wide), Laowa shift macro 15 (backpacking shift) , Zeiss 15/2.8 (aurora), Zeiss 25/2(aurora) are my specialty landscape lens.
600/f4, 200-400 (and my RF 100-400 and RF 200-800) are my go to wildlife lens.
I use my 85/1.2 and 24-70/2.8v1 for grandchildren pictures.
For landscape I love the 11 stop variable EF-RF adapter which means I don't need tonnes of filters.
[I have only bought RF 200-800 [walking/car shooting) , 100-400 (hiking) , 16stm (backpacking/travel), 24-105stm (backpacking/travel), 24-50stm (travel), and 15-30stm (backpacking/travel) for weight and size, as needed.
mborozny wrote:
My Canon days go back to 1998, too. I find that the EF lenses adapt beautifully to the Canon mirrorless cameras, working better than on the DSLR bodies.
Ultimately I made the decision to go right into Canon mirrorless and skip Sony when the first R camera came out. Both B&H and Adorama recommended it over the Sony A7 III for my situation and how I photograph.
If you do decide to sell, MPB and FM are both good options. I worked in schools for years, and a lot of camera equipment gets buried in the media closets.
In my situation, I saw in a newsletter (my son is in the same school system) they had a photography camp and not enough cameras to go around, reached out and found out they have a photography and graphic design class as well and they were very excited to get a couple extra DSLRs. Somewhat randomly found out they were over the moon at the idea of having my old Alien Bee studio flashes.
I know one of the cameras was loaned to a student within a few days of me dropping it off, so that made me happy.
Choderboy wrote:
What's ridiculous is you saying "No one has passed it", even though you then immediately point out that's untrue.
I couldn't care less about a few megapixels. I just think facts matter.
One fact being, 50mp vs 60mp isn't much.
They haven't meaningfully passed Canon, if that wording makes you feel better.
Still using almost exclusively EF mount lenses adapted (though the three zooms and the Tamron 85mm prime get a lot more love than the rest of the stable). In fact, just today I updated the firmware of the Fringer EF-NZ adapter to make stabilization behave more logically AND solve the issues of under/overexposing when shooting fast bursts - the aperture seemingly couldn't keep up. So adapting is king AND there's nothing wrong with the better EF-mount lenses that I have, like the 16-35mm f/4L IS that is seldom parted from my Nikon Z9... And even the much maligned first-generation 70-200mm f/2.8L IS works just fine adapted, with great IQ (though admittedly I don't shoot at 200mm f/2.8 and look at the farthest corners very often... if at all).
What is arguably "pathetic" is backtracking to 45MP when you introduced a fine 50MP FF camera a decade ago... and when the competition has been providing 60MP for years.
What is also arguably "pathetic" is when the completion can put 40MP in an APS=C camera and Canon can only manage 45MP in a FF body.
So much for being the industry leader...
That aside, the EF lenses are still fine overall.
- - -
*Substitute "disappointing for "pathetic" if the latter word hurts your feels. ;-)
BTW no one was calling 50MP "pathetic"... at least not in this thread.
EB-1 used the word to say that:
The problem is that (pathetically) Canon still has no sensor with resolution that is better or as good as the >10 YO 50MP 5DsR.
Then someone pulled it out of the context.
BTW if someone thinks that 45MP vs. 50MP is a deal breaker, I think it's a poignant question of priorities. Same with 50MP vs. 60MP, really, although the difference is more noticeable here.
P.S. I guess the 5DSR's sensor, despite having 11% more resolution than any 45MP sensor, would fall the more modern sensors behind pretty noticeably for noise performance, so it might not be better in the end.
Personally I dont find Nikon pathetic, even though they only have 45mp max. Perhaps others do?
Are Nikon and Sony aps pathetic? Canon led the industry 32mp aps, Sony and Nikon still haven't caught up. Fuji came out 40mp, took a little while though
AmbientMike wrote:
I might look at it the other direction, it's pretty amazing Canon came out 50mp sensor 10 years ago. No one has passed it. Nikon hasn't, still 45mp, Sony only barely has at 60.
Sony's A7R V sensor has 22% greater resolution than the old 5DsR sensor, and doesn't force you to bracket and blend exposures at base ISO in order to get a useable dynamic range, but sure, it's "barely" better...
I am still using all EF glass on my primary bodies (RP and R5) and have no plans to really switch to RF unless needed. One such lens is my trusty EF 24-70mm f2.8L. It has already had an iris cable replaced and one day I will get a RF IS to replace it, but only if it breaks. It really shows its lack of resolution on the R5 though but its fine for my uses.
Otherwise my other EF lenses work great, the 70-200mm f2.8L IS v2 and the 300mm f2.8L IS v1. Their focus accuracy is better on the RF bodies with their in plane focus sensor elements. I will likely add a EF 500mm or 400mm DO later.
I recently purchased a used EF 24-105mm f4L IS for travelling for $350. It was never a great lens to begin with but I couldn't see spending five times as much or the RF version when I know I'll be using it at f8 in bright sun and have it bang against chairs and stuff as I walk around.
I started in 2005 with a refurbished Digital Rebel and have mostly kept the same set of lenses once I got the 24-70/70-200mm f2.8 pair. Either I don't see the appeal of wholesale system replacement or can't afford it (: Maybe I have much simpler needs.
Cliff L. wrote:
Sony's A7R V sensor has 22% greater resolution than the old 5DsR sensor, and doesn't force you to bracket and blend exposures at base ISO in order to get a useable dynamic range, but sure, it's "barely" better...
If you look at file size it has <10% more pixels in each direction, so <10% increase in resolution
File size is huge, no lossless compressed raw.
Yes, the 5DSR is more like A9 III DR, but probably a bit better since no NR. GDan used to have a page on his site speaking about how 5DsR DR is fine.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
BTW no one was calling 50MP "pathetic"... at least not in this thread.
EB-1 used the word to say that:
Then someone pulled it out of the context.
BTW if someone thinks that 45MP vs. 50MP is a deal breaker, I think it's a poignant question of priorities. Same with 50MP vs. 60MP, really, although the difference is more noticeable here.
P.S. I guess the 5DSR's sensor, despite having 11% more resolution than any 45MP sensor, would fall the more modern sensors behind pretty noticeably for noise performance, so it might not be better in the end.
My personal situation is more complicated that 45MP versus 50MP versus 60MP, and in a way that relates fairly directly to the point of this thread: the idea of using EF lenses on newer R cameras.
Since I've had my 5DsR since pretty much when it was released (almost exactly a decade ago), I'm getting to the point where I can anticipate replacing it. If Canon had not moved from the EF mount to the RF mount (and I understand why this did change) the issue would be simple: I would just get the highest MP Canon camera and continue to use my existing EF lenses. In fact, the difference between 45MP and 50MP is virtually meaningless in terms of image resolution.
But it isn't quite that simple.
Normally I don't think switching brands makes a lot of sense, and I too often see people doing that because they got tired of what they are using, like buying new stuff, and/or imagine that a different brand will change their photography. All of those are generally pretty weak reasons. I feel that it is best to buy into a brand and stick with it.
However...
... to stick with Canon now means moving to the (reportedly excellent) R bodies. While I might use an adapter for one of my current lenses (and perhaps for my Mirex t/s MF lens adapter), if I were to move to R I would also move to RF lenses. That means that when I leave my 5DsR behind eventually, I'm looking at replacing my entire system — either with Canon or with something else. And the usual hesitation about considering other brands is gone, given that the costs of staying with Canon would be very close to the costs of moving to a different brand.
So one thing that I look at when considering brands is where they are in terms of their technology relative to other brand options. At the moment, for my particular needs, I don't see that Canon is providing as much value as a couple of alternatives. I do make use of high resolution sensor cameras, so when I see that Canon has gone from being the leader (by a good margin) in that regard to bringing up the rear, that lowers the prospects that my move would be to the R system. It increases the odds of a moe to the Sony system. (I have a number of photography friends and colleagues who are doing absolutely first class work with Sony, so I don't buy the claims that Sony is no good.)
Is 45MP "good enough?" Sure. If nothing else were viable it would not even be an issue. But, as I think EB-1 was implying (and I agree), it seems "pathetic" (or something close to it) that Canon now offers us less resolution than they did a decade ago.
If you aren't a high res kind of photographer — and not everyone is — then this doesn't matter to you, and I understand.
MrAmbient wrote:
GDan used to have a page on his site speaking about how 5DsR DR is fine.
Choderboy wrote:
You are struggling with facts again. A7RV does have Lossless Compressed.
Indeed, he is.
In fact GDan (that would be me) has a bunch of pages at his site related to the 5DsR. If I didn’t think it was a great camera 10 years ago I would not have purchased it or used it for the next 10 years.
gdanmitchell wrote:
While I might use an adapter for one of my current lenses (and perhaps for my Mirex t/s MF lens adapter), if I were to move to R I would also move to RF lenses. That means that when I leave my 5DsR behind eventually, I'm looking at replacing my entire system — either with Canon or with something else.
I was initially dead against adapters too, but the genuine Canon plain ones I have are very high quality and a tight fit. There is a small amount of play if you stack a heavy lens on a teleconverter and adapter, but otherwise they are tight. The best way to use them is to leave an adapter on each lens, and think of that unit as a converted lens. (I think Canon missed a trick here in not offering adapters that fasten with a dress screw instead of the lever, in colours matching their historical lenses, for a slightly higher price.) If, like me, you have more EF lenses than adapters, buy enough adapters for the maximum number of EF lenses you will carry at once, and fit them as you move the lenses from the shelf to your bag, before you leave the house. Don’t forget to do that before getting on a plane...
It makes all your EF lenses 22mm longer and 110g heavier, and I did have to buy some new lens pouches for carrying them in my hiking pack. If you’re carrying 3 or 4 EF lenses the weight adds up and, for me, almost wipes out the weight reduction of the R3 compared to the 1Ds Mk III. That’s one reason, in my first post in this thread, I divided my EF lenses into ones I mostly use on the DSLR and the two I mostly use on mirrorless.
There is one big inconvenience with adapters in the field, and that is their use with teleconverters. The RF ones (at least the 1.4×) can’t be fitted behind the adapter. So you need to use an EF teleconverter and fiddle around splitting the stack in the middle instead of at the body mount when swapping the teleconverter on and off. Since I bought the RF 100–500 and RF 1.4× I mostly left this fiddling behind, but it would still be necessary for the very few times I’d want to use my EF 1.4× III behind my EF 180mm macro lens for higher magnification when not using the DSLR body.
A mistake I now think I made was to get the plain adapters instead of the control ring ones. I had not realised that, if I assigned aperture to the control ring, in manual mode with auto ISO the rear dial could be set to control exposure compensation, consistent with every other mode.
In fact GDan (that would be me) has a bunch of pages at his site related to the 5DsR. If I didn’t think it was a great camera 10 years ago I would not have purchased it or used it for the next 10 years.
I have no argument with your assessment regarding the 5Ds / 5DsR.
I do have a problem with incorrect statements.
Such as:
"No one has passed it" and "No lossless compressed".
In my opinion, "about 50mp" is good enough to describe many current cameras ranging from 45 to 60 mp.
I think it’s a shame this rather interesting thread on EF lenses is being derailed by yet another Sony vs. Canon body argument. An uninformed one at that: Sony’s on-sensor phase detect AF causes flare artefacts under certain extreme lighting conditions, and Canon’s dual pixel AF means they have to make a 90Mpx sensor to deliver a 45Mpx one. Both companies have made valid engineering tradeoffs, both make good cameras, and there is no universal answer as to which is better.
melcat wrote:
I was initially dead against adapters too, but the genuine Canon plain ones I have are very high quality and a tight fit. There is a small amount of play if you stack a heavy lens on a teleconverter and adapter, but otherwise they are tight. The best way to use them is to leave an adapter on each lens, and think of that unit as a converted lens. (I think Canon missed a trick here in not offering adapters that fasten with a dress screw instead of the lever, in colours matching their historical lenses, for a slightly higher price.) If, like me, you have more EF lenses than adapters, buy enough adapters for the maximum number of EF lenses you will carry at once, and fit them as you move the lenses from the shelf to your bag, before you leave the house. Don’t forget to do that before getting on a plane...
It makes all your EF lenses 22mm longer and 110g heavier, and I did have to buy some new lens pouches for carrying them in my hiking pack. If you’re carrying 3 or 4 EF lenses the weight adds up and, for me, almost wipes out the weight reduction of the R3 compared to the 1Ds Mk III. That’s one reason, in my first post in this thread, I divided my EF lenses into ones I mostly use on the DSLR and the two I mostly use on mirrorless.
There is one big inconvenience with adapters in the field, and that is their use with teleconverters. The RF ones (at least the 1.4×) can’t be fitted behind the adapter. So you need to use an EF teleconverter and fiddle around splitting the stack in the middle instead of at the body mount when swapping the teleconverter on and off. Since I bought the RF 100–500 and RF 1.4× I mostly left this fiddling behind, but it would still be necessary for the very few times I’d want to use my EF 1.4× III behind my EF 180mm macro lens for higher magnification when not using the DSLR body.
A mistake I now think I made was to get the plain adapters instead of the control ring ones. I had not realized that, if I assigned aperture to the control ring, in manual mode with auto ISO the rear dial could be set to control exposure compensation, consistent with every other mode....Show more →
Not sure if quite understand the issue with the EF teleconverter - but I don't have the rf type, just the EF and neither the 200-800 04 14-45 rf require one. I only have on adapter ( the one wit filters) and is indeed a game changer for filters - might get a regular type once my wife swaps her camera to ML as she rarely sets camera in Manual mode.
My only snag is if I mix ef and RF lenses in the bag, as then I have to remove adapter from one lens to another if in between I use a RF lens.
FD to EF was a big deal; I think is a lesser issue with the EF to RF since the ML can take such a variety of adapters. Heck, I even use some Leica lenses on the R3 now
Same with 50MP vs. 60MP, really, although the difference is more noticeable here.