p.5 #1RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote:
Going with a minimalist approach is my ultimate goal as well!
I've noticed that when I travel alone, I pack less and take less gear. However, when I travel with anyone I become a "self appointed documentarian" and pack more gear. I am actually somewhat proud of myself for having gone with only two cameras and three lenses on last month's trip to Japan with my kid! The "old me" would've definitely overpacked for that trip. 😀
You would be the perfect person to ask regarding your thoughts on Fuji. I'm a bit disappointed with APS-C after my R7, but it could be that I had a bad copy. My old 7dmk2 actually yielded nicer images than my R7, but that's a completely different topic. I have heard great things about Fuji. Coming from Full Frame, how do you like the results you are getting with your Fuji system compared to FF? ...Show more →
>>Coming from Full Frame, how do you like the results you are getting with your Fuji system compared to FF? <<
I’m not Dan, but I spent 3 years with a Fuji X kit. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, that for me APSC simply left me wanting. It’s perfectly adequate, but never gave me the “juice” I get from higher resolution FF or Medium Format digital. I was MUCH happier traveling with the Sony A7CII at 33mp than I ever was with the Fuji X 40mp cams. And the body and lens size and weight differences were negligible. Sony size is why I moved to it after Fuji — I think it offers the best FF size benefit. Also! Remember to keep in mind that f2.8 on APSC renders DoF like f4 on a comparable FF lens. There is no free lunch.
p.5 #2RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
austinschutz wrote:
To me it sounds like - in part - you like collecting equipment and changing it out sometimes. You want to have a Leica at some point, but will it permit the kind of shooting you want, or would you have to keep another system?
You are way more invested in the Canon ecosystem than Sony's, and you like Canon's ergonomics better. Is the performance difference really so large that you couldn't sell the Sony system in favor of a used Leica and a used lens? Enjoy the Leica, use the Canon for things where AF is needed. I am assuming you should be able to get the 4-5k for the Sony system that would fund a used M10. Then pick up a Voigtlander lens, or some vintage Leica glass to see if you really love the rangefinder experience and want to commit?
I imagine you could also sell a lot of your Canon glass - e.g., why have the 24-240? It seems like when you want to use that for ease of use for travel/casual photography that you would be better served by also enjoying the small size of your m4/3 system. You could get rid of the 16mm and 24mm STM primes since you have the 16-28 (unless you love those, but if you are getting a Leica it seems to defeat the purpose of having the RF system be as small as possible?). As Steve mentions, you could get the R8.
Could you also sell most/all of the EF equipment? Or do you find yourself using it a lot? It just seems like you have a lot of things that duplicate each other AND if you get a Leica it would also duplicate other things you have, so you might be able to fund it easier than you think (and I don't really see the reason to committing to 30k of Leica equipment rather than stepping into it and growing your system over time the more you use it).
I'm holding on to the rest because I'd like to see what the new R8II has to offer.
As for my EF lenses, I rarely use my EF 28mm f1.8 USM or my EF-S 17-55mm f2.8. The others get some occasional use, especially the EF 100mm f2.8L Macro and the EF 300mm f4.0L
I'm probably going to rent equipment in the near future before I commit to anything though.
p.5 #3RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jack Flesher wrote:
>>Coming from Full Frame, how do you like the results you are getting with your Fuji system compared to FF? <<
I’m not Dan, but I spent 3 years with a Fuji X kit. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, that for me APSC simply left me wanting. It’s perfectly adequate, but never gave me the “juice” I get from higher resolution FF or Medium Format digital. I was MUCH happier traveling with the Sony A7CII at 33mp than I ever was with the Fuji X 40mp cams. And the body and lens size and weight differences were negligible. Sony size is why I moved to it after Fuji — I think it offers the best FF size benefit. Also! Remember to keep in mind that f2.8 on APSC renders DoF like f4 on a comparable FF lens. There is no free lunch. ...Show more →
I'm holding on to the rest because I'd like to see what the new R8II has to offer.
As for my EF lenses, I rarely use my EF 28mm f1.8 USM or my EF-S 17-55mm f2.8. The others get some occasional use, especially the EF 100mm f2.8L Macro and the EF 300mm f4.0L
I'm probably going to rent equipment in the near future before I commit to anything though.
I think that sounds like a good start to clarifying what you are ultimately aiming for. I can't lie, I wish I had the same problem
p.5 #5RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote:
I'm probably going to rent equipment in the near future before I commit to anything though.
Here's a better idea: buy&sell here on FM, it's way cheaper. Last year, when I wanted to dip my toes into the Nikon Z-system, I bought myself a used Z8 and two lenses here. Was shooting with them all summer, and then sold to another FM member. Less than $100 total out of pocket, basically the cost of shipping. Renting just a body alone for just one week would have been more than that.
If I had more patience, I probabaly could have made a small profit by selling locally on craigslist or FB marketplace. I now understand why so many FM members have hundreds of transactions in their profiles. It just makes sense.
Thanks to FM, trying out gear is essentially free.
p.5 #6RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
EF 28/1.8 (310g)
RF 28/2.8 (120g)
RF 35/1.8 (305g)
RF 50/1.8 (160g),
EF 50/1.8 (160g)
EF 85/1.8 (425g)
These lenses can be replaced by a single 28-70mm f/2, which addresses some weather sealing concerns. The Sony variant (981g) is better (faster AF and lighter)
RF 16/2.8, 28/2.8, is redundant because you have the RF 16-28/2.8 or Tamron 17-28/2.8 zoom.
Canon 7dmk2 feels redundant when you have the R6II, and the EF-S 17-55 can be sold with it
You said you wanted to sell the RF 16-28mm, 24-240mm and Sony A7iv. (removed from list)
RF 24mm f1.8 is an odd one, 24mm at f/1.8 does not give enough background separation for talking head video (and photos with similar subject distance) so I would replace with a f1.4. You are also lacking one f/1.4 lens for low light.
EF 17-40mm can be sold (many sharper zooms than this, you also have other wide zooms
To buy:
- FE 28-70/2 GM or RF 28-70/2L
- FE 24/1.4GM or RF 24/1.4L VCM
- Canon R6II (670g)
- RF 24-105/4L (700g)
- EF 100mm f2.8L Macro (625g)
- EF 300mm f4.0L (1,190g)
- EF 70-200mm f2.8L (1,490g)
- OM System OM-5 (414g)
- Panasonic 9mm f1.7 (18mm f3.4, 130g)
- OM System 40-150mm f4 Pro (80-300 f/8, 382g)
- Olympus 30mm f3.5 Macro (60mm f/7, 128g)
- Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro (120mm f/5.6, 185g)
- Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 G2 (24-70 f5.6, 306g)
- Panasonic 17mm f2.5 G (typo? Olympus 17/2.5 or Panasonic 14/2.5?)
Thoughts:
Between the 9mm and 17mm pancakes do you really need both? Usually only 1 pancake is used right?
Between the 30, 60 and 100mm macros maybe you can consolidate to 1 lens. Either sell 2 or sell 3 and buy 1. Sony's 100mm Macro is quite interesting.
EF 300mm f4.0L is not that sharp right, I wonder if a new 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x is better. The rumored 400/4.5 and 600/6.3 primes which weigh under 1kg look sweet.
If you dont mind 28mm, FE 28-60/4-5.6 (167g) is lighter than Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 G2 (24-70 f5.6, 306g) but I don't think it meets your weather sealing goals.
These lenses Can be replaced by a single 28-70mm f/2, which addresses some weather sealing concerns. The Sony variant (981g) is better (faster AF and lighter)
Total weight of RF 24/1.8 (270g), 35/1.8 (305g), 50/1.8 (160g), 85/2 (500g) = 1085g
Total weight of EF 28/1.8 (310g), 50/1.8 (160g), 85/1.8 (425g) = 894g
Weight of Sony 28-70mm f/2 = 918g.
So, the weight of a convenient zoom is comparable to a bunch of small primes.
That's why I am agonzing over Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 (525g) or Viltrox 15+25+35mm f/1.7 Air (total 520g).
Which is better for travel: a big convenient zoom or a bunch of small inconspicuous primes?
p.5 #8RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
thw02 wrote:
I love these threads 'cos I am in the process of switching systems and just love to hear everyone's input.
Total weight of RF 24/1.8 (270g), 35/1.8 (305g), 50/1.8 (160g), 85/2 (500g) = 1085g
Total weight of EF 28/1.8 (310g), 50/1.8 (160g), 85/1.8 (425g) = 894g
Weight of Sony 28-70mm f/2 = 918g.
So, the weight of a convenient zoom is comparable to a bunch of small primes.
That's why I am agonzing over Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 (525g) or Viltrox 15+25+35mm f/1.7 Air (total 520g).
Which is better for travel: a big convenient zoom or a bunch of small inconspicuous primes?
Except that zoom is 2x the price of all those primes (or more), is always in your hand while shooting, where the weight is most felt, and is neither 24mm nor 85mm.
(This is why I prefer a 24-105/4 lens for travel. I don’t need the speed often and it covers a much wider range…but I also always have a UWA).
p.5 #9RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jman13 wrote:
Except that zoom is 2x the price of all those primes (or more), is always in your hand while shooting, where the weight is most felt, and is neither 24mm nor 85mm.
(This is why I prefer a 24-105/4 lens for travel. I don’t need the speed often and it covers a much wider range…but I also always have a UWA).
The primes aren't cheap either! OP's kit totals ~$27,440 at MSRP, so adding a 28-70/2.0 barely moves the needle.
Personally shooting with a 70-200 is comfortable, but my shoulders hurt. The shoulders is where where the weight is most felt when there are multiple lenses in the bag, particularly if you use a sling bag (but sling bags are a necessary evil when using primes for quick lens changes).
Sony A7c ($1,799.99)
Sony A7iv ($2,499)
Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 ($899)
Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 ($699)
Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 ($729)
Canon R6II ($2,499)
Canon 7dmk2 ($1,799)
RF 16mm f2.8 STM ($299.99)
RF 24mm f1.8 Macro ($599.99)
RF 28mm f2.8 STM ($299.99)
RF 35mm f1.8 Macro ($499.99)
RF 50mm f1.8 STM ($199.99)
RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM ($1,149)
RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 ($899)
RF 24-105mm f4.0L ($1,099)
EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 USM ($1,179)
EF 28mm f1.8 USM ($509.99)
EF 50mm f1.8 STM ($125)
EF 85mm f1.8 USM ($419.99)
EF 100mm f2.8L Macro ($1,049)
EF 300mm f4.0L ($1,349)
EF 17-40mm f4.0L ($839)
EF 70-200mm f2.8L ($1,299)
OM System OM-5 ($1,199.99)
OM System 45-150mm f4 Pro ($899.99)
Olympus 30mm f3.5 Macro ($299.99)
Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro ($499.99)
Pan/Leica 9mm f1.7 ($499.99)
Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 G2 ($999.99)
Olympus 17mm f2.8 ($299)
Cameras: $9,796.98
Lenses: $17,642.88
Total MSRP: $27,439.86 USD
p.5 #10RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
thw02 wrote:
I love these threads 'cos I am in the process of switching systems and just love to hear everyone's input.
Total weight of RF 24/1.8 (270g), 35/1.8 (305g), 50/1.8 (160g), 85/2 (500g) = 1085g
Total weight of EF 28/1.8 (310g), 50/1.8 (160g), 85/1.8 (425g) = 894g
Weight of Sony 28-70mm f/2 = 918g.
So, the weight of a convenient zoom is comparable to a bunch of small primes.
That's why I am agonzing over Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 (525g) or Viltrox 15+25+35mm f/1.7 Air (total 520g).
Which is better for travel: a big convenient zoom or a bunch of small inconspicuous primes?
Simply, there are times and places, or users, for the "ZOOM!" or primes. The zoom would always be on the camera, so it's bigger and heftier, probably in the hands or on the neck/shoulders. A lighter camera and lens might be a more comfortable carry, less apparent, etc. But that means needing to deal with swapping.
I usually prefer the convenience of zooms. But times and places do change. My next trip will be with family (mostly not "photographers") and given the dynamics of places, schedules and interests, "A" zoom could be, to my thinking, ideal. Probably taking two I already have. We're moving together, in broadly common touristy areas, etc., not to my photo schedule, etc.
Other folks, perhaps even duplicating, sort of, the "route" and locations might find different opportunities, be out in edgier places or just different places, or having more time. I don't think there is a "better," just a different.
p.5 #11RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
You gave yourself an interesting challenge: you want faster AF than your R6II (forget Leica); weathersealing; light weight; good ergonomics for you and full frame.
I doubt there are many cameras with faster AF than the R6II and the ones that exist are probably not that lightweight.
Same goes for weathersealing. The ones that are sealed are most likely not lightweight.
It’s seems clear that you prefer Canon ergonomics over Sony’s, but Sony offers access to smaller lenses (though a combo of the 16-28, 28-70 and 70-200/4 would be pretty small and sealed).
To be quite honest, I don’t think your dream kit exists in FF. It exists in MFT and that’s what I would choose for travel (I actually often combine MFT with a Fuji GFX100s and the 35-70mm lens).
p.5 #13RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
johnvanr wrote:
So, why do you want large files? Is there something wrong with your OM-5 files from Japan?
I am not OP but dynamic range takes a hit on small sensor cameras.
This means its easy to blow out say a white dress.
For example, if the scene needs 7 stops of DR, you wont clip the dress until above ISO 4000+ on A7C but with OM-5 you will clip the dress above ISO 1600
p.5 #14RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
I am not OP but dynamic range takes a hit on small sensor cameras.
This means its easy to blow out say a white dress.
For example, if the scene needs 7 stops of DR, you wont clip the dress until above ISO 4000+ on A7C but with OM-5 you will clip the dress above ISO 1600
I’ve shot tens of thousands of shots with MFT and the relatively narrower dynamic range has never been an issue. And my MFT gear can warn me when I’m about to blow the highlights, while my Canons can’t.
Granted, I’m not one to seek details in the shadows.
Noise used to be the biggest issue, but that’s gone with the great noise reduction software.
The relative difference in DoF goes both ways. For travel, I’m fine with MFT’s DoF.
p.5 #15RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
johnvanr wrote:
I’ve shot tens of thousands of shots with MFT and the relatively narrower dynamic range has never been an issue. And my MFT gear can warn me when I’m about to blow the highlights, while my Canons can’t.
Granted, I’m not one to seek details in the shadows.
Noise used to be the biggest issue, but that’s gone with the great noise reduction software.
The relative difference in DoF goes both ways. For travel, I’m fine with MFT’s DoF.
I shoot all formats, btw. About to give up APS-c.
That’s an odd way to put it. If dynamic range has truly never been an issue, then you wouldn’t need a warning telling you when you’re about to exceed it in the first place.
p.5 #16RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
That’s an odd way to put it. If dynamic range has truly never been an issue, then you wouldn’t need a warning telling you when you’re about to exceed it in the first place.
That doesn’t make sense. It’s just a highlight warning. Leica’s have them as well, to warn against overexposure.
p.5 #17RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
aCuria wrote:
The primes aren't cheap either! OP's kit totals ~$27,440 at MSRP, so adding a 28-70/2.0 barely moves the needle.
Personally shooting with a 70-200 is comfortable, but my shoulders hurt. The shoulders is where where the weight is most felt when there are multiple lenses in the bag, particularly if you use a sling bag (but sling bags are a necessary evil when using primes for quick lens changes).
Sony A7c ($1,799.99)
Sony A7iv ($2,499)
Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 ($899)
Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 ($699)
Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 ($729)
Canon R6II ($2,499)
Canon 7dmk2 ($1,799)
RF 16mm f2.8 STM ($299.99)
RF 24mm f1.8 Macro ($599.99)
RF 28mm f2.8 STM ($299.99)
RF 35mm f1.8 Macro ($499.99)
RF 50mm f1.8 STM ($199.99)
RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM ($1,149)
RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 ($899)
RF 24-105mm f4.0L ($1,099)
EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 USM ($1,179)
EF 28mm f1.8 USM ($509.99)
EF 50mm f1.8 STM ($125)
EF 85mm f1.8 USM ($419.99)
EF 100mm f2.8L Macro ($1,049)
EF 300mm f4.0L ($1,349)
EF 17-40mm f4.0L ($839)
EF 70-200mm f2.8L ($1,299)
OM System OM-5 ($1,199.99)
OM System 45-150mm f4 Pro ($899.99)
Olympus 30mm f3.5 Macro ($299.99)
Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro ($499.99)
Pan/Leica 9mm f1.7 ($499.99)
Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 G2 ($999.99)
Olympus 17mm f2.8 ($299)
Cameras: $9,796.98
Lenses: $17,642.88
Total MSRP: $27,439.86 USD...Show more →
I don’t understand this need for quick changes of lenses. Can you not go out for the day with one prime and change things up the next day with a different prime. Just shoot images that fit the focal length that is on your camera.
p.5 #18RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
johnvanr wrote:
That doesn’t make sense. It’s just a highlight warning. Leica’s have them as well, to warn against overexposure.
I thought all modern cameras have live histogram? I just make sure I try to cramp everything within the histogram using exposure compensation. I just deal with shadows etc later in post-processing, so having sensors with wide dynamic range help.
p.5 #19RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
thw02 wrote:
I thought all modern cameras have live histogram? I just make sure I try to cramp everything within the histogram using exposure compensation. I just deal with shadows etc later in post-processing, so having sensors with wide dynamic range help.
Yes, you can also use the histogram, but that just gives a global depiction of the under and over exposure. The warning blinkies show you exactly where the whites and the blacks are beyond recoverable. Like zebra warnings in video.
p.5 #20RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
johnvanr wrote:
That doesn’t make sense. It’s just a highlight warning. Leica’s have them as well, to warn against overexposure.
That’s the contradiction. You’re saying dynamic range has never been an issue, then immediately citing a feature you use to warn you when you’re about to exceed the sensor’s dynamic range. If the limit genuinely never mattered, there would be nothing to warn you about.
Take a simple example: you meter an 18% grey card to establish the correct exposure for the subject. If, at that exposure, the white dress exceeds the sensor’s highlight limit and clips, then the scene requires more dynamic range than the sensor provides at that ISO. You can underexpose to save the dress, but now you’re shifting the problem toward the shadows.
If you have time to slowly compose the shot, sure, you can watch the warning and adjust the exposure until the clipping disappears. But if you’re capturing a spontaneous moment, you may not get that opportunity. The dress may already be irretrievably clipped by the time you see the warning.
A camera with more dynamic range gives you more exposure latitude and reduces the chance of losing either highlights or shadows in the first place.
Alternatively, you can ask all your subjects to get a spray tan and wear dark clothes. That should solve the dynamic-range problem too. /s
