p.3 #1RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
I currently shoot with both Canon and Sony systems.
If Ii wanted just one system for travel and landscape shooting, it would be the Canon R5 or R5 II along with the RF 14-35mm f4L, 24-105mm f4L, and the RF 100-500mm f4.5-6.3L, or alternatively I could probably live with just the 14-35 f4L and the RF 70-200mm f4L. None of the other camera makers have lenses in those specific focal lengths and f-stops that are optically better; if you want faster lenses you end up with much bigger and heavier glass. I say that as someone who is currently leaning towards keeping just my Sony gear, but only because Sony has more versatile options for wildlife photography (at the cost of slightly worse AF performance in some situations).
No offence meant, but the OP's current lens list is mostly in the middle or lower end of the quality spectrum as far as Canon and Sony glass goes; I've owned most of them and quickly got rid of them, but they are probably adequate quality if one sticks to low-resolution cameras. If you want to benefit from L-series or GM glass, you really ought to be looking at a better camera body as well, or you might not see much benefit from your new lens investments.
Ultimately, the trade-off between size/weight and optical quality is a person decision only you can decide how much image quality you're willing to sacrifice to save a few grams of weight.
p.3 #3RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
We have and deploy them all at work. Here's what I saw in testing...
Wide: (15-35/2.8L v. 16-35/2.8GM II)
Both are excellent lenses, but the Canon maintains better overall resolution throughout its range. The Canon really only has one downfall, at that would be the over four stops of vignetting at the widest setting that does not go away quickly as you stop down. The Sony's better there by a little over a stop but isn't quite as wide.
Normal: (24-70/2.8L v. 24-70/2.8GM II)
Here, they run more equal in errors (no large difference in vignetting or distortion) and CA correction is weak on the wide end for both. The Sony barely does better than their own 24/2.8G and the Canon's outpaced by their older (and, admittedly, large with an adapter) EF 24/2.8 IS, and both lose some significant oomph at the long end. Still, for zooms, either is better than what came before. The Sony wins on resolution and consistency throughout its range, and the difference is significant. Canon does much better with the 28-70/2L, but the Sony 28-70/2GM is more impressive, though the gap isn't as large there.
Tele: (70-200/2.8L Z v. 70-200/2.8GM II)
There are nitpicking little differences (you can get the Canon in black), but, from a performance perspective, they may as well be the same lens. I'd go with the Sony because their 1.4x tests a smidge better with the GM than Canon's does with the L, but I'd be perfectly happy shooting either.
p.3 #4RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
freaklikeme wrote:
We have and deploy them all at work. Here's what I saw in testing...
Wide: (15-35/2.8L v. 16-35/2.8GM)
Both are excellent lenses, but the Canon maintains better overall resolution throughout its range. The Canon really only has one downfall, at that would be the over four stops of vignetting at the widest setting that does not go away quickly as you stop down. The Sony's better there by a little over a stop but isn't quite as wide.
Normal: (24-70/2.8L v. 24-70/2.8GM II)
Here, they run more equal in errors (no large difference in vignetting or distortion) and CA correction is weak on the wide end for both. The Sony barely does better than their own 24/2.8G and the Canon's outpaced by their older (and, admittedly, large with an adapter) EF 24/2.8 IS, and both lose some significant oomph at the long end. Still, for zooms, either is better than what came before. The Sony wins on resolution and consistency throughout its range, and the difference is significant. Canon does much better with the 28-70/2L, but the Sony 28-70/2GM is more impressive, though the gap isn't as large there.
Tele: (70-200/2.8L Z v. 70-200/2.8GM II)
There are nitpicking little differences (you can get the Canon in black), but, from a performance perspective, they may as well be the same lens. I'd go with the Sony because their 1.4x tests a smidge better with the GM than Canon's does with the L, but I'd be perfectly happy shooting either.
p.3 #5RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote:
Thank you!!! Large amounts of vignetting is a deal breaker for me, so this is really great info to know! What camera bodies were you using?
Anytime. R5 and R3 on the 15-35, R5II and R3 on the other two, a1II and a9II for the 16-35GM II, and a1 and a9II for the other two, though I did go back and test them all with the a9III when we got it.
p.3 #6RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
@snegron7 purely based on what you shared: build yourself an R-system, i.e. find a Canon body with the AF performance and IQ that you like. Sell some/all of your Sony and Olympus gear if you have to.
I am primarily a Sony user, but my advice is based on your comment regarding ergonomics. IMO it is the most important thing. One cannot enjoy photography long-term if he loses that internal comforting warmth coming from picking up and holding their camera. Shapes, materials, haptics, control placement, shutter sound.
If they love a camera, people can be very creative and find workarounds for weak or missing features. Leica and Fuji users know what I'm talking about. But I don't remember hearing or reading about someone who learned to love the ergonomics of a camera which they initially disliked. The nagging feeling will never go away.
p.3 #7RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
old-gregg wrote:
@snegron7@@@ purely based on what you shared: build yourself an R-system, i.e. find a Canon body with the AF performance and IQ that you like. Sell some/all of your Sony and Olympus gear if you have to.
I am primarily a Sony user, but my advice is based on your comment regarding ergonomics. IMO it is the most important thing. One cannot enjoy photography long-term if he loses that internal comforting warmth coming from picking up and holding their camera. Shapes, materials, haptics, control placement, shutter sound.
If they love a camera, people can be very creative and find workarounds for weak or missing features. Leica and Fuji users know what I'm talking about. But I don't remember hearing or reading about someone who learned to love the ergonomics of a camera which they initially disliked. The nagging feeling will never go away....Show more →
Thank you! I agree with you regarding the relationship bewteen how a camera feels and much one enjoys capturing creative images with it.
For several decades I was a diehard Nikon fan. It seemed almost like with every new model, they created a more ergonomically perfect camera (F3HP with MD4 motor drive, F100, F5, D200, D750). When I owned my ladt Nikon dslr (D750), I decided to buy a Canon 6dmk2 just for fun because it was on sale. I was blown away at how amazing it felt in my hands! It's like Canon custom designed that camera specifically for me! The R6 felt the same, but my R6II had that great Canon "feel" plus it performed better than my R6.
Unfortunately, despite that great Canon "feel", the R6II is also heavier (at least it feels heavier to me). Maybe the weight displacement might be more tolerable to me if I had L series primes instead of L series "trinity" zooms? I don't know. I will definitely explore that option by renting a few L primes and zooms to see if I should go in that direction.
Regarding Sony, I don't know if my A7iv is the same as higher end models regarding ergonomics. If so, then that narrows down my choice to go with Canon. However, if higher end Sony bodies feel and perform better (I'm sure they perform better) than my A7iv, then I need to explore Sony options a bit more. Again, I'll probably rent a higher end Sony body to see if I can feel the difference.
p.3 #8RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote:
You definitely hit the nail on the head regarding what I want; GM/L quality lenses only smaller/lighter than the "trinity" big boys on a full frame body. My assumption is that I can probably get that with a Leica rangefinder system. Unfortunately, that comes at a very high price for me.
In the rangefinder world, equipment is small but quality is big. In the mirrorless world, the higher the quality, the bigger the equipment.
While I would like to get the "trinity" lenses for either Canon or Sony, I'm at odds with carrying a large "trinity" lens attached to a camera body. Should I bite the bullet and get the "trinity" lenses and start finding a good chiropractor, or is there a chance that maybe a GM/L prime or two would be less strain to carry around? I honestly don't know the answer.
As others have suggested, renting seems like a smart idea to see how much of a compromise I'm willing to commit to. Since I can't say for sure that I absolutely love my R6II or A7iv, will it even be a good idea to spend any more money on these camera outfits? Maybe if the R6II weighed less and had better AF tracking. Maybe if my A7iv were easier/faster/built better.
This feels like if I'm trying to decide whether I should buy a brand new high performance engine for either a steel boat-like old car or for a 3 seat plastic car. Kind of feels like neither one deserves the new engine. ...Show more →
You're going in several different directions at once. I don't think you'll notice any significant improvements in build quality going up to flagship level camera bodies. The R6 and a7IV are both quite solid. Perhaps you need to just try the top tier stuff to find out if it really is worth the investment. As others already suggested, renting would make sense if you devote enough time during the rental period to perform all your necessary tests.
Spend a week with a Sony a1 II and the GM lenses you want. Then do the same with Canon. Consider which Canon body you really need. The R5 II is going to give you hi-res images but only the R3 and R1 are comparable to Sony a1/a9 level speed. Canon makes you choose resolution or speed. Sony puts both in one camera.
Juggling multiple camera systems can be be exhausting. I think you just need to choose one and commit your time and resources to one platform. MFT could satisfy your needs if you went all-in with the OM-1 II and some of the "PRO" lenses.
p.3 #9RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
freaklikeme wrote:
We have and deploy them all at work. Here's what I saw in testing...
Wide: (15-35/2.8L v. 16-35/2.8GM II)
Both are excellent lenses, but the Canon maintains better overall resolution throughout its range. The Canon really only has one downfall, at that would be the over four stops of vignetting at the widest setting that does not go away quickly as you stop down. The Sony's better there by a little over a stop but isn't quite as wide.
Normal: (24-70/2.8L v. 24-70/2.8GM II)
Here, they run more equal in errors (no large difference in vignetting or distortion) and CA correction is weak on the wide end for both. The Sony barely does better than their own 24/2.8G and the Canon's outpaced by their older (and, admittedly, large with an adapter) EF 24/2.8 IS, and both lose some significant oomph at the long end. Still, for zooms, either is better than what came before. The Sony wins on resolution and consistency throughout its range, and the difference is significant. Canon does much better with the 28-70/2L, but the Sony 28-70/2GM is more impressive, though the gap isn't as large there.
Tele: (70-200/2.8L Z v. 70-200/2.8GM II)
There are nitpicking little differences (you can get the Canon in black), but, from a performance perspective, they may as well be the same lens. I'd go with the Sony because their 1.4x tests a smidge better with the GM than Canon's does with the L, but I'd be perfectly happy shooting either.
My biggest issue with both the Sony 16-35 GM II and the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II is significant sample variation - I've had fairly mediocre copies of each of these lenses. Canon seems to be a little more consistent in this regard.
I've read about the vignetting with the RF 15-35mm f2.8 in reviews, but have never actually seen it in any of my photos - probably because lens corrections in Lightroom seem to reduce it enough to not be noticeable.
p.3 #10RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
At the risk of being the condescending troll my advice would be to slow down and really think about what you enjoy about photography, end to end all the way to display, then start ranking/prioritizing. Even as you acknowledge so friction your still at odds with yourself. Leica system is small and excellent but you want the trinity on mirrorless. I don’t think Leica has the trinity zooms. And you can get compact and excellent in all mirrorless systems (maybe not all the way to f/1.4 fast) but then you probably aren’t chasing speed with trinity zooms. And a Leica system when you don’t like the R6 because the Sony focuses faster (if I understood you).
And candidly I get it, no one is making bodies I like anymore and there isnt much exotic or interesting coming on the lens front these days (for me). And I also prefer small and light. But that usually isn’t flexible which is the nature of photography. It’ll be a merry go round till you define what’s most important and why, because the shirt pocket full frame 14-300 f/2 still doesn’t exist. And sounds like you’re stuck in multiple systems unless you decide what you’ll give up.
p.3 #11RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Cliff L. wrote:
My biggest issue with both the Sony 16-35 GM II and the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II is significant sample variation - I've had fairly mediocre copies of each of these lenses. Canon seems to be a little more consistent in this regard.
I've read about the vignetting with the RF 15-35mm f2.8 in reviews, but have never actually seen it in any of my photos - probably because lens corrections in Lightroom seem to reduce it enough to not be noticeable.
Interesting. We've had the two sample copies we use for evaluation, then the eight copies of each we keep in stock and I haven't noticed a significant difference at all between them so far as sample variation. Sounds like one of us is having better luck than the other.
I am surprised you've never seen it. Even leaving corrections on in LR will only cut it in half without further editing.
p.3 #12RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
AdaptedLenses wrote:
At the risk of being the condescending troll my advice would be to slow down and really think about what you enjoy about photography, end to end all the way to display, then start ranking/prioritizing. Even as you acknowledge so friction your still at odds with yourself. Leica system is small and excellent but you want the trinity on mirrorless. I don’t think Leica has the trinity zooms. And you can get compact and excellent in all mirrorless systems (maybe not all the way to f/1.4 fast) but then you probably aren’t chasing speed with trinity zooms. And a Leica system when you don’t like the R6 because the Sony focuses faster (if I understood you).
And candidly I get it, no one is making bodies I like anymore and there is t much exotic g coming on the lens front these days (for me). And I also prefer small and light. But it’ll be a merry go round till you define what’s most important and why. And sounds like you’re stuck in multiple systems, unicorns are rare. ...Show more →
You are not a troll. I totally get what you are saying, and I agree; I need to take a deep introspective look at what it is that I want to achieve regarding photography at this stage in my life.
This is the thing; when I purchased my very first 35mm film camera back in 1979 (a Pentax K1000), I was hooked! Since then I've had an on again/off again relationship with photography. I have been trying to recreate/relive that wonderful, happy time I had when I first started this journey. Chasing the dragon so to speak. Back then both the gear AND the results I got with the gear brought me joy. Now it's either one or the other. Interestingly enough, I haven't printed anything in years except for the sporadic rolls of film I shoot whenever I buy a nice old 35mm film camera.
So, I've found a somewhat "happy medium"; travel photography. I get that "newness thrill" whenever I travel to someplace new, and I try to capture it as faithfully as possible (including darkly lit interiors of European cathedrals, cobblestone streets at dusk, etc). Walking around those places with a giant camera around my neck sucks the joy out of being there. Yes, I really love to carry my tiny, lightweight OM-5 with me, but the images are something between APS-C and a cellphone. Definitely not anything I can crop, print, or view the tiny details that I couldn't see when I was there in person taking the picture.
I also enjoy shooting the occasional macro images of spiders in my yard and somewhat cool looking birds in my neighborhood. But if I had to choose which genre of photography brings me the most joy right now, it would be travel photography.
One of my future plans is to use some of my images to create oil/acrylic paintings. For that I need to be able to crop certain parts of the images I capture. Smaller sensor cameras won't be of much help with that, so I need to stick with FF cameras.
So, based on everything I mentioned above, a Leica rangefinder with 3 fast primes would probably be the ideal outfit for me. But, like I mentioned in my OP, I don't have Leica money. I can come up with $10,000 for a couple of lenses over the next year, but I can't come up with $30,000 to get my "ideal Leica outfit". Fast "trinity" zooms are economically practical because they replace 3 lenses, but they are too heavy to carry around my neck. Fast GM/L primes are a bit lighter, but I really don't know by how much. So, that's a summary of my "dilemma".
p.3 #14RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
"I really don't love my A7iv (uncomfortable ergonomics and the fact that I have to shoot 100% manual for every single situation because it doesn't work as efficiently in Aperture Priority + Auto ISO as my R6II does"
I'm curious, what's so special about the Canon that it works better in that scenario? I don't own the A7 IV, but I started on the Sony A7R III, and auto ISO seemed to work fine for me. In low-light situations, I feel that Manual + auto ISO is preferable anyway.
Now for a compact, high-quality system, Fuji APS-C cameras seem quite nice for that. If you can barely bear the size and weight of a FF system but still want it anyway, I think Sony is the better system compared to Canon and Nikon for the versatility of lenses available and the weight of their bodies and lenses.
I've looked at the Sony A7C series myself for their compactness, but I like to shoot with the EVF, and it frankly sucks on these cameras. I used to think that the A7R III EVF was good, but after using the A1, it just does not cut it anymore. For you, I think the A7R VI looks like it's the best camera: good ergonomics and the high resolution you're after. And enough flexibility to use a zoom or a small prime.
Speaking of ergonomics, people are often vague when they hit that subject. Are they talking about how the camera feels in their hands, how they operate, or both? In any case, we are all different, which means you will have to try for yourself and not trust strangers on the internet...
p.3 #15RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
In your OP, you listed types of responses you do not want.
So when I now point out you are posting quite illogical thoughts, please have a think about it before responding in anger.
"Fast GM/L primes are a bit lighter, but I really don't know by how much."
Two Google searches give you the answer:
Weights in Oz/Grams.
FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II 24.5 (695)
RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM 31.8 (900)
RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM 29.7 (840)
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II Lens 19.3 (547)
The simple Google is: Sony 24-70 TDP.
It will take you to The Digital Picture, list the weight of the Sony 24-70 GM and GMII and the Canon equivalent.
I, respectfully, suggest wondering about the weight of lenses is illogical if you have access to Google.
p.3 #16RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Choderboy wrote:
FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II 24.5 (695)
RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM 31.8 (900)
RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM 29.7 (840)
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II Lens 19.3 (547)
Also worth noting Canon’s lightweight options here since the 700g 24-105mm lens was deemed too heavy by OP. They’re not L, but optically they are right there with L glass:
If going with RF or FE primes instead, you shouldn’t be looking at L or GM primes really if you’re looking for the most compact kit.
Here I’d go for Sigma’s I series primes on E mount, or Canon’s STM primes on RF mount, though the VCM L primes and f/1.4 GM primes aren’t all that big or heavy (500-600g each).
Or if manual focus is fine, the Voigtlander primes on either mount. 21/3.5, 40/1.2, 75/1.5 (on RF you’ll have to adapt the M mount 21 but works well).
p.3 #17RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Choderboy wrote:
"But, like I mentioned in my OP, I don't have Leica money."
I think you do. You may well have double Leica money in the gear you have.
You could sell 2 of your 3 systems to pay for:
p.2 #10
Have you been on the buy and sell board?
35 Lux ASPH v1 — $2,500
50 Lux ASPH — $2,300
M11 — $5,500
In 3-4 years time, it will all be worth, about, the same!
Thanks! I'm a bit cautious when it comes to buying used gear. When I do buy used gear, it's usually gear that I am very familiar with (because I know how it's supposed to feel and how it's supposed to perform), and I buy it from places with a warranty. Private sellers usually don't offer any warranty. Risking $10,000 on used gear from a private seller without me having the knowledge/experience of having ever even used equipment from that system in the past is too much of a risk for me.
Of course, I'm sure I just opened up another can of worms; "how do you know if a Leica rangefinder outfit is good for you if you've never used one before?" My answer; Form factor. My only true rangefinder experience has been with my Nikon S2 Rangefinder. Not a fan of the wheel focusing system, but to my knowledge Leica doesn't have that.
I'm sure there are a ton of mathematical equations that explain why it is that a Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 weighs only 200 grams and is only 1.4" long while a Sony 35mm f1.4 GM weighs 525 grams and is 3.8" long. Neither one has IS. Both are for full frame cameras. If the complicated mathematical answer includes something to do with the distance beween the sensor and lens, then that means that the Leica rangefinder is in fact more compact in every aspect than a mirrorless full frame camera.
That of course will most likely open up yet another can of worms, "Then why don't you get a Sony A7CR with a few G series compact primes like the Sony 40mm f2.5 G, or the Sony 24mm f2.8 G?" Simple answer; those lenses are not f1.4.
Etc.
p.s. This reply also covers the questions you asked regarding the weight searching topic.
p.3 #18RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
I've got some thoughts rattling around in my head…
I did not build my kit in one year. I would go as far as to say that not a single photographer in this thread, built their kit that they are running with currently in a year. I have been pretty obsessed with photography for decades as well.
I’m really gonna narrow my responses. You want it all. Cool. I think that you want a Leica. I did too. The challenge I set for myself was to take ~20,000 with this M10r and this 50 lux. I'm @7000’ish. If I didn't have kids and a job I'd be at 100,000. My point is, I think this is a point, is that having a bunch of options doesn't mean better or more fun. Try less. It won't hurt.
snegron7 wrote:
You are not a troll. I totally get what you are saying, and I agree; I need to take a deep introspective look at what it is that I want to achieve regarding photography at this stage in my life.
This is the thing; when I purchased my very first 35mm film camera back in 1979 (a Pentax K1000), I was hooked! Since then I've had an on again/off again relationship with photography. I have been trying to recreate/relive that wonderful, happy time I had when I first started this journey. Chasing the dragon so to speak. Back then both the gear AND the results I got with the gear brought me joy. Now it's either one or the other. Interestingly enough, I haven't printed anything in years except for the sporadic rolls of film I shoot whenever I buy a nice old 35mm film camera.
So, I've found a somewhat "happy medium"; travel photography. I get that "newness thrill" whenever I travel to someplace new, and I try to capture it as faithfully as possible (including darkly lit interiors of European cathedrals, cobblestone streets at dusk, etc). Walking around those places with a giant camera around my neck sucks the joy out of being there. Yes, I really love to carry my tiny, lightweight OM-5 with me, but the images are something between APS-C and a cellphone. Definitely not anything I can crop, print, or view the tiny details that I couldn't see when I was there in person taking the picture.
I also enjoy shooting the occasional macro images of spiders in my yard and somewhat cool looking birds in my neighborhood. But if I had to choose which genre of photography brings me the most joy right now, it would be travel photography.
One of my future plans is to use some of my images to create oil/acrylic paintings. For that I need to be able to crop certain parts of the images I capture. Smaller sensor cameras won't be of much help with that, so I need to stick with FF cameras.
So, based on everything I mentioned above, a Leica rangefinder with 3 fast primes would probably be the ideal outfit for me. But, like I mentioned in my OP, I don't have Leica money. I can come up with $10,000 for a couple of lenses over the next year, but I can't come up with $30,000 to get my "ideal Leica outfit". Fast "trinity" zooms are economically practical because they replace 3 lenses, but they are too heavy to carry around my neck. Fast GM/L primes are a bit lighter, but I really don't know by how much. So, that's a summary of my "dilemma". ...Show more →
p.3 #19RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Surfnsun wrote:
I've got some thoughts rattling around in my head…
I did not build my kit in one year. I would go as far as to say that not a single photographer in this thread, built their kit that they are running with currently in a year. I have been pretty obsessed with photography for decades as well.
I’m really gonna narrow my responses. You want it all. Cool. I think that you want a Leica. I did too. The challenge I set for myself was to take ~20,000 with this M10r and this 50 lux. I'm @7000’ish. If I didn't have kids and a job I'd be at 100,000. My point is, I think this is a point, is that having a bunch of options doesn't mean better or more fun. Try less. It won't hurt.
I agree, definitely Leica will have to be a long term goal for me because of the cost. My sensless economics tells my brain that spending a couple of thousand dollars here and there on one or two lenses or bodies every year is cheaper than dishing out $30,000+ up front for a Leica outfit. Of course, when you add up how much I've spent on gear over the past 10 years it surpasses that initial Leica outfit up front cost (In my OP, I only listed the gear I currently have, not all the gear I've had and sold over the past 10 years. That number is frightning).
One thing for certain is that my A7iv will be the first to be sold as I really don't get along with it. My A7c doesn't take up much space, plus I can use it whenever I travel to sketchy places, so it stays as well. The Tamrons are decent travel lenses for the A7c, although they make the outfit front heavy. They will probably stay with me as part of my "A7c Sketchy Travel Places" outfit.
My R6II will stay with me too because despite its weight and weird AF tracking, it produces nice images. The RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM, RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 will definitely be sold (I really don't like the RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM). My RF tiny primes will stay (temporarily) until I see what the new R8II looks like. It might make for a decent, lightweight travel option with my cheap RF primes. While they are not weather-sealed, they are inexpensive enough to replace them as needed.
My OM-5 will stay because it doesn't really take up much space. Plus, it's like a slightly oversized all weather point and shoot backup camera for when it's raining, especially when I pair it with my Pan/Leica 9mmf1.7.
p.3 #20RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Surfnsun wrote:
I've got some thoughts rattling around in my head…
I did not build my kit in one year. I would go as far as to say that not a single photographer in this thread, built their kit that they are running with currently in a year. I have been pretty obsessed with photography for decades as well.
I’m really gonna narrow my responses. You want it all. Cool. I think that you want a Leica. I did too. The challenge I set for myself was to take ~20,000 with this M10r and this 50 lux. I'm @7000’ish. If I didn't have kids and a job I'd be at 100,000. My point is, I think this is a point, is that having a bunch of options doesn't mean better or more fun. Try less. It won't hurt.
Actually, I know several who build a new kit in a month or two. But they’re all seasoned photographers who decided to change systems for whatever reason and know their needs. The caveat is manufacturers keep bringing out newer and usually better in some way bodies and lenses, 1st or 3rd party, that have features desired. So said kit may in fact be fluid, but the basics don’t change; two bodies and these lenses. I may decide to get the 28-70/2 GM to try compared to my 24-70/2.8 GMii, so in that there is a change but not necessarily substantial.
Back to the OP. If you want Leica, that’s what you should get since it’s the only way to scratch the itch. Sell everything you have outside a base Canon or Sony kit that does the longer stuff better and you’ll have plenty for a good M body and at least two lenses. From there, you’ll have cash leftover to fill in either another M lens or upgrade your Canon/Sony kit to round out. Either way, you’ve got so much gear now and then a lot of it is aged, so it’s only leading to frustration. Sell, sell, sell, then restructure carefully…
Edit note. I used to lead Leica workshops. Exceptional quality, no argument. But the M sucks at wider than 24 and longer than 90. Yes they can do it, but if we’re honest, they don’t do it very well. So 24-90 is the sweet spot lens range. Hard to beat the M with a 28 and 50 or 24 and 35 for a fun travel and street cam. And frankly why the Q43 and Q28’s are popular. Point here is if you regularly like to go longer or wider than that range, like many of us do, a Sony or Canon (or Nikon) kit with some higher end zooms is always going to be hard to beat. Then you can buy a top prime or three and enjoy much of the Leica M shooting ethos with that same kit, and get way better focus and essentially identical image quality for less than half the price — which again is what many of us do instead, myself included. Just sayin…
