If I was starting over, I’d pick Nikon or Sony for this very reason. I rented a z9 on a recent shoot, and it was such a joy to shoot. Sony seems to have the most open lens mount at this time, so maybe Sony would be my choice, but I’m really drawn to Nikon right now. I like most of my Canon glass, I’d just love to have more options (especially a new fast 35), but I like having variety when it comes to glass.
The advantage of Nikon at this point appears to be they have some interesting lenses, the general performance of the Z8 for its price, and that apparently you can adapt Sony FE lenses with AF support to Nikon. If that works reliably, it basically opens up many the FE third party range of lenses that aren't available natively for Nikon (apparently some are not compatible or buggy with the adapter). TBH, I'm kind of surprised Nikon hasn't tried to shut down the adapter route.
But from my POV, Canon's bodies at comparable price points have more of the features I want.
Not bothered at all. Going back to EF days I only ever had 2 non Canon AF lenses both Sigma. 8mm and 70mm macro. After a few years sold them. Canon has offered the AF focal lengths and zooms that met my needs in both EF and RF mounts.
As far as 3rd party lenses for RF or adapted EF I enjoy using MF Voiglander and Zeiss lenses. I wish Voigtlander would offer a few more focal lengths for RF.
Flowernut wrote:
This is making me think hard about leaving canon after 50 years starting with the FTb. To many missing lenses in their lineup. 150-600 copy someone elses if you can't figure it out yourself. Flip in 1.4x for 600 f4. It goes on and on. Then we have the lensses they did make. 70-200mm lenses that won't accept a 1.4 or 2x making we keep the EF version. Super telephotos and zooms like the 200-800 that don't accept drop in filters. A bunch of lens I don't need or want even as a gift. Glad the EF converter works so well and thank-you for one that takes drop in filters as it has been great with my EF super wide angles....Show more →
As far as Nikon, the one time I ran into a guy using a 500pf, he had it on a (~3lb!) Z9 and a tripod! So much for the pf lenses being lighter. Once I saw that, it was like, yeah, Nikon being lighter is a fallacy.
After all the money spent on here, and all the nonsense about having to buy mirrorless to get lighter gear, people inexplicably bellyached about $800 to get the much lighter 100-500 and demanded the fairly large 4.5lb 200-600.
Canon responded and gave them the cheap supertele they demanded, basically added a 1.4x TC fulltime and the 200-800 was born, $100 less than the 200-800. It is what people wanted, hard to take criticisms too seriously, and criticism is generally worthy of an eye roll
Build quality on non L glass is the problem, we can live without filters
Most filters I can do without but a polarizer is a must. 82mm ok but for example the 200-800 is 95mm with limited options. I've also done pelican photos on a stream with super telephoto EF with polarizing ND filters (pelican sharp stream blurred) using drop in filters. How about 112mm filters for the 100-300 f2.8. How many of those do you want to buy $$$ or carry? I really want to draw the line at 82mm and drop in above that. That's why I like the RF EF converter set up for drop in filters.with super wide angles like the 14-24 sigma EF. I'll be keeping those rather than RF mount for super wides just because of the ability to use filters nd, ir, astro, polarizer, color balance you name it.
Re: OP, this was one of the reasons I haven't even seriously considered the RF system when going mirrorless 3 years ago (there were other reasons too)... and that despite being a Canon shooter for 15 years prior to that. I'm using all my EF lenses on Nikon Z seamlessly with an adapter, though I'm not buying any more of them. I've also ordered the latest and best Megadap Sony E to Nikon Z adapter, which will give me some fun potential combos down the track.
Comment of the year. (More than) once i saw a guy using a trolly to carry their canon 100-400 and camera… does it mean that you need a trolly to carry a canon 100-400?
It seems it gives you great pain when competitors offer something better than canon. Believe me it’s all right, it’s actually a good thing. It doesn’t make your gear worse that what it is and it
doesn’t change the images you take (or don’t take)
AmbientMike wrote:
As far as Nikon, the one time I ran into a guy using a 500pf, he had it on a (~3lb!) Z9 and a tripod! So much for the pf lenses being lighter. Once I saw that, it was like, yeah, Nikon being lighter is a fallacy.
crisdesign wrote:
Comment of the year. (More than) once i saw a guy using a trolly to carry their canon 100-400 and camera… does it mean that you need a trolly to carry a canon 100-400?
It seems it gives you great pain when competitors offer something better than canon. Believe me it’s all right, it’s actually a good thing. It doesn’t make your gear worse that what it is and it
doesn’t change the images you take (or don’t take)
Maybe it pains you for me to point out Canon is better?
The Z9 weighs close to 2x the R5. The Z9 + 500pf is over 6 lbs! If that's your idea of saving weight, and "better," go ahead, The Z8 isn't that light, either
R5 + 100-500 under 5 lbs, r5 and 400/4 about the same as 500pf on z9. I guess youd need a trolly on the Z9 and 500pf, too, since its heavier than a lot of Canon cameras + 100-400 II
Canon user here. If you can point me to any Canon lens that offers 500mm at f/5.6, or 600/800mm at f/6.3, at anything close to Nikon’s weight and price, please do.
My current setup is an R5 with the 500mm f/4 II and the EF 100–400 II.
The comparison with the Z9 is disingenuous. A Z8 + 500mm is in the same weight range as an R5 with the RF 100–500, with the Nikon being 2/3 of a stop faster, while the Canon is a zoom. Everyone knows this, but some are being economical with the truth.
Dismissing the entire nikon offering based only on the weight of the z9 is just silly.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Canon cannot afford to open its lens mount. They would instantly loose 90% of lens sales. It would be suicide for Canon. And they know it.
I didn't realize that only 10% of EF lens sales were Canon branded.
crisdesign wrote:
Canon user here. If you can point me to any Canon lens that offers 500mm at f/5.6, or 600/800mm at f/6.3, at anything close to Nikon’s weight and price, please do.
My current setup is an R5 with the 500mm f/4 II and the EF 100–400 II.
The comparison with the Z9 is disingenuous. A Z8 + 500mm is in the same weight range as an R5 with the RF 100–500, with the Nikon being 2/3 of a stop faster, while the Canon is a zoom. Everyone knows this, but some are being economical with the truth.
Dismissing the entire nikon offering based only on the weight of the z9 is just silly. ...Show more →
You are being disingenuous, not me. Name a single thing I said that isn't true.
So many are going with the Z9, mostly negating a pf weight advantage. R5 + RF 600/4 is about the same weight as Z9 + 800/6.3, talking about price Z8 and Z9 aren't cheap, unless they've come down, and the Z8 isn't that light, either, about the same as 5D3 , you know, the big, bad DSLR
It was eye opening to see that guy in the field, and seeing that a lot of stuff people say about Nikon on here, isn't really true. Alreany mentioned the lens, 400 DO II + 1.4 gives 560mm, about the same weight on R5 vs Z9 and 500pf
It’s disingenuous to compare the weight of a gripped body to a non-gripped one just to win an argument. In your example, replace the Z9 with a Z8, or the R5 with the R1, and then tell us the numbers.
Alternatively, you could use the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5, since it’s the closest equivalent to the 400mm f/4, and again provide the weight and price.
crisdesign wrote:
...In your example, replace the Z9 with a Z8, or the R5 with the R1, and then tell us the numbers.
Alternatively, you could use the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5, since it’s the closest equivalent to the 400mm f/4, and again provide the weight and price.
Good luck and merry xmas
It's your argument. How about you providing the numbers?
Best thing about Canon in years gone by is the saturation of the mount.. You could always find good deals.
Still excellent EF lenses in the super telephoto class.
But, Canon is not the huge leader it used to be. Those days are gone forever.
I still like Canon because you can find allot of cheap excellent lenses in EF mount. But, that is fading fast.
