My 30D took great pictures with my lenses. I watched every release and was never happy with stone missing feature and finally decided I wanted an R camera and the R6 Mark iii checks all the boxes.
So dumping almost all my equipment except for an EF 70-200 f/2.8L. most of my other lenses were EF-S.
replacing flashes as well.
Still waiting on all the equipment, but I already sent out my old equipment.
So just waiting for the right camera for the features I wanted.
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, anyone still using their pre-R camera? ;-)
I used the 5DsR with the 24TSE II last time. Results are better than the R5 or R5 II as you know.
I could use it on the Sony, but more of a hassle if I only want to have two bodies and also use the 16-35/4 IS.
I'm still waiting for Canon to make a higher-grade, high-res sensor instead of the ridiculous focus on the Stackable sensors.
I'm not going further than what I have in R lenses, 24-105/4, 70-200/4, 100-500, until we get more resolution. Everything else is still EF.
John Power wrote:
Well said and I am done in any event. I am more concerned now with properly executing my major and natural minor scales up and down my guitar neck.
However, back to photography I did a quick cruise to Nassau and back last weekend and took my Ricoh GRIIx and as nice a travel camera as it is, it has the 40mm lens and I miss the zoom on my Canon G5X. Yes the Ricoh has the APS-C sensor but I am questioning whether there is a noticeable difference between the two given the same settings. There is a nice looking G5X II in B&S but a grand for a camera released in 2019 is a bit much in my opinion.
I haven't gone R yet because I see no need to. I drive a 2000 Toyota 4Runner with 183,000 miles so that may explain why I am stuck in the obviously photographically deficient EF world.
There is a photographer named Ansel Adams and I was looking at some of his stuff recently. Just awful. Now if he had had a Canon R5II with the proper landscape lens then maybe things would have been different but he was just born way too early to produce real quality photographs.....
I guess he did the best he could with the technology available at the time......Show more →
Totally agree… re: Ansel
For me it’s Vivian Maier
What she created with a single lens AND manual focusing is incredible - yet today they need eye af, 30 fps and a computer to correct the image!!!
We are now but lemmings to the marketing spiel, each blindly jumping off the cliff…in hope 🤣
joeluster wrote:
(snip)
I have now invested into micro four thirds to cut the weight down when image quality is not paramount.
-Joe
I have R10 + EF-S 18-135 USM for that. Also since R10 has 24MP and R6/2 has 24MP, R10 works for me as a glasless 1.6x TC. The EF-S 18-135 USM also has this funny powerzoom gadget, so in case I need to do a steady zoom-in zoom-out on a video (which I do one in a million years) I can use that. Reusing system I have, I somehow cannot justify to buy into another one, but of course it's horses for courses.
The question for me was; if going mirrorless required either adapting - or replacing all the lenses anyway - why even stick with Canon? I did not even seriously consider the RF system because the only thing I would be able to keep when switching would have been the old 430EX flash - and even then, I think, the RF system has changed the hotshoe anyway? (correct me if I'm wrong, I've not researched that earnestly) The deal was sealed when I was shopping for a new camera, second-hand, and found that R3 - the only RF camera I ever gave any thought - was costing more than the Nikon Z9, despite the latter having almost double the resolution. Any thought of going RF that I might have had was gone after that.
I've been adapting my stable of EF lenses to the Nikon system for three years now, and I can safely say that they work at least as well as they did on Canon EF cameras, which is good enough for me. I'm sure it can be better but I'm not yet going native on this side of the fence, either, as I believe I have a good lens lineup for now (especially the 16-35/4 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, and the Tamron 45 and 85 duo).
To be clear - I think the RF system has a few interesting and unique lenses, like the 10-20mm. Being a wide-angle junkie, I would have jumped on that... but the costs are prohibitive, and the number of options is limited compared to other systems, with the virtually non-existent third-party support that the RF system has. I can imagine switching to RF could be a breeze for someone with $15000 readily available, but then again, that sort of money could buy you a full set of good cameras and (non-supertelephoto) lenses in any system, except Leica, of course... lol. So nobody's really locked into using Canon anyway.
Also the camera ergonomics have also changed enough between the EF and RF cameras that consistency doesn't really seem to be there, at least for me.
That said, I'm guilty of thinking that my new mirrorless camera has MUCH better IQ, with the same lenses, than the 1D Mark IV that has been serving me so well for 8.5 years exclusively, and for three more now (and counting) intermittently. I really do feel guilty about abandoning it.
chez wrote:
What century you living in? Automation has been in place for 75 years and has been getting cheaper and better long before AI. And yet we have historically low unemployment rates…who’d thunk that.
If you have seen the 1973 movie, Westworld, with Yul Brynner as an AI robotic gunslinger that goes off script, then you know it can happen, and did with an AI robot...
Technology is wonderful, when it works...
Jim
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Totally agree… re: Ansel
For me it’s Vivian Maier
What she created with a single lens AND manual focusing is incredible - yet today they need eye af, 30 fps and a computer to correct the image!!!
We are now but lemmings to the marketing spiel, each blindly jumping off the cliff…in hope 🤣
I gotta tell you one thing I have learned Pixel. I play a lot of guitar and one can fall into the trap of thinking that the more expensive a guitar you buy the better player you will (or hope you will) be. That ain't so and I am sure many camera aficionados fall into that same trap. No FMer's of course. One exception would be travel cameras. They have come a long way both as to quality and particularly size and I enjoy my Ricoh. It has an APS-C sensor in it which is an engineering marvel for a camera that slides right into you pocket.
I could buy a Gibson L5 yesterday but I would still make the same mistakes I make now on my semi-hollow body Eastman I bought used for $700 that plays and sounds beautifully especially with that '57 classic Gibson humbucking pickup I put in it for a few hundred dollars.
Would I like to have an L5 sure. Would I like to have a Canon R5 Mark II? Of course. But do I need either to be satisfied with my work product? Absolutely not. I am fine with my 5DMark4 and my 35mm 2 thank you and some of my absolute favorite family photos were taken with point and shoot film cameras back in the day.
jgoetz4 wrote:
If you have seen the 1973 movie, Westworld, with Yul Brynner as an AI robotic gunslinger that goes off script, then you know it can happen, and did with an AI robot...
Technology is wonderful, when it works...
Jim
You sitting in your cozy home communicating with potentially millions of people around the world tells me technology works more often than not.
Heck, people die daily in cars…should we go back to the horse and buggy?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Totally agree… re: Ansel
For me it’s Vivian Maier
What she created with a single lens AND manual focusing is incredible - yet today they need eye af, 30 fps and a computer to correct the image!!!
We are now but lemmings to the marketing spiel, each blindly jumping off the cliff…in hope 🤣
Why is it that you care how people spend their earned dollars. Many people buy new cars all the time…I drive my car into the dirt before looking at buying another used car. I don’t give a damn if my neighbour owns his new Tesla just like I don’t care what camera he owns.
chez wrote:
You sitting in your cozy home communicating with potentially millions of people around the world tells me technology works more often than not.
Heck, people die daily in cars…should we go back to the horse and buggy?
People could communicate around the world once the telephone was perfected, and still, people die in self driven cars and trucks as well. Until it's perfected, technology is flawed no matter what type...
jgoetz4 wrote:
People could communicate around the world once the telephone was perfected, and still, people die in self driven cars and trucks as well. Until it's perfected, technology is flawed no matter what type...
And here you are sitting on the net rather than talking on your phone.
Tell me one thing that is 100% guaranteed in life…just one thing.
Chez I do not think Pixel met his comment in a mean negative way. He was just providing his personal perspective on the issue and I especially agree with this comment which I find to be a bit humorous:
"yet today they need eye af, 30 fps and a computer to correct the image!!!"
By the way, I do the same thing with my cars. Currently drive a 2000 Toyota 4Runner as I have previously mentioned.
chez wrote:
Yet technology has been delaying death.
You said guarantee one thing and I did. Death; no matter how much technology improves, you will die at some point. Guaranteed...
Even people who are sentenced to death, sometimes die in agony. Why? Because some of the methods are flawed and they suffer in the process, but they eventually die during the process...
jgoetz4 wrote:
Even people who are sentenced to death, sometimes die in agony. Why? Because some of the methods are flawed and they suffer in the process, but they eventually die during the process...
You sure sound like a cheerful guy. If I were you, I’d get off the internet, far away from your computer just in case it spontaneously catches fire. Better safe than sorry.
jgoetz4 wrote:
You said guarantee one thing and I did. Death; no matter how much technology improves, you will die at some point. Guaranteed...
I wouldn’t say guaranteed. Who knows what technology can do in the future. Maybe freezing people until a solution to their problem is found can keep people living. That’s the beauty of technology…you never know.
The EF-S 18-135 USM also has this funny powerzoom gadget, so in case I need to do a steady zoom-in zoom-out on a video (which I do one in a million years) I can use that. Reusing system I have, I somehow cannot justify to buy into another one, but of course it's horses for courses. 
