Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

decibles t1_j0fz15p wrote

Alright.

Now give us more entry level lenses that aren’t a 7.1 or a decent full frame body that isn’t $2500

138

urnotthatguypal__ t1_j0gfld2 wrote

Why would you ever buy new entry level when there is a robust used market and you can get an older prosumer level instead.

And if you are willing to manual focus, there's the abundant supply of cheap vintage fast glass.

If you are a professional, then by all means buy new.

34

decibles t1_j0gidtp wrote

Because the R6 is still hovering around $2000 with low shutter counts and the R5 is $3300 all day long, while the R is still going for $1400 being notably meh. (Also my clumsy ass loves a protection plan)

They’ve rounded out their lineup with the crop sensor cameras, put out a second generation of the R6… it’s time to refresh the lower end of their full frame lineup.

8

girlfriendsbloodyvag t1_j0givnj wrote

The EOS RP is a great little camera, it’s right at 1k body only

5

decibles t1_j0gmmes wrote

Currently own an eos RP and love it but given the first generation of cannons mirrorless full frame bodies were just re-packages of their existing full frame DSLR‘s it’s time for a refresh.

We know they can do better

2

Useful_Low_3669 t1_j0hbify wrote

Vintage glass is my latest obsession. There are cheap adapters available for any lens combo you can imagine. I put an old Leica lens on my Sony a7r and I’m getting some really striking cinematic looking shots. Even if you’re a professional there are endless opportunities for unique, creative images with vintage lenses.

5

Greenpoint_Blank t1_j0hjhui wrote

I agree. But the problem is that most vintage glass is stupid heavy. The EF 85mm 1.2L which is around 700 used is like 2.5 lbs so it is a terrible carry around/travel lens. It weighs about the same as my Hassy x1d ii with the 45p lens.

3

byDMP t1_j0kbhc9 wrote

>I agree. But the problem is that most vintage glass is stupid heavy. The EF 85mm 1.2L which is around 700 used is like 2.5 lbs so it is a terrible carry around/travel lens.

The EF 85/1.2 is neither vintage nor a typical example of the size and weight of vintage optics.

1

byDMP t1_j0kmxzq wrote

>Why would you ever buy new entry level when there is a robust used market and you can get an older prosumer level instead.

Buying used camera gear isn't really a beginner's game. It's very easy to get scammed, overpay, or buy something with problems that won't be found until later.

1

BlastMyLoad t1_j0hkber wrote

Fast vintage glass is hardly cheap these days with the mirrorless video shooters gobbling them up and destroying them by making them “cine lenses”

Still cheaper than modern equivalents for the most part tho

0

DjPersh t1_j0gl6dh wrote

You can get the Canon R for like a grand and it’s an amazing FF camera.

24

Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0goxm5 wrote

And honestly if you can’t create good stills work with even an old 5dm2, the problem isn’t the camera. That was, in recent memory (10 years ago), what a lot of working pros I knew were using. I just bought a 5d3 for a few hundred bucks as a back-up body I can bring into situations where I don’t have to worry about my big investment getting damaged.

If you need a hybrid with great video specs for cheap Canon may not be the company for you (Fuji is who I’d recommend)

37

kyuubixchidori t1_j0h1eu2 wrote

Yeah exactly. a 5D3 is going to be more capable then most entry level photographers will ever need with proper glass.

I have a RP with some used lenses, I think I have $1500 total and it’s absolutely more then I’d need any time soon. the consumer class has basically died out anyway because of smart phones. you used to see people out and about all the time with $500-$1000 set ups, now it’s only people who are absolutely hobbyists or professionals, and they aren’t going to buy entry level gear anyway.

11

Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0h6vcm wrote

Exactly. I used to see civilians rocking Rebels all the time and now it’s only younger people who just need to get in the game and got in cheap to upgrade later

3

RooseveltBulletTrain t1_j0h54ks wrote

Holy shit, you can get 5d3 for a few hundred? Those were the shit make in my early videography days.

8

Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0h7h1w wrote

Yeah check KEH. I got one in pristine condition for like $500-$600 (can’t remember). Like it looks brand new and has less than 13k shutter actuations. For stills work you can literally create world class images with this sensor and the AF is crazy fast.

It’s older, but perfected tech and is built like a tank so if anyone is balking at paying $2500 for a camera it’s a fantastic option

9

Jmich96 t1_j0is8me wrote

What's a good, cheap fullframe camera for strictly photography? I was eyeing up the Nikon Z5 when it came out, but a lense and everything would total $2000+.

2

Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0jyg5q wrote

What’s the budget and what do you shoot? You could just get the 5D mkIII like I did. Then the lens to start would be the real expense

2

byDMP t1_j0khmam wrote

>What's a good, cheap fullframe camera for strictly photography?

'Do you actually need full-frame?' is the first question.

1

nicetriangle t1_j0tu4jo wrote

They're still great cameras too. I finally sold mine earlier this year and it was still working great and taking killer shots after 9-10 years.

1

byDMP t1_j0kb6d6 wrote

>If you need a hybrid with great video specs for cheap Canon may not be the company for you (Fuji is who I’d recommend)

The R7 and especially the R10, are not expensive.

3

Dr_Dickem_MD t1_j0m9r0l wrote

Ah you’re right the R7 seems to be pretty capable shooting 10-bit log. Bit rates aren’t as good as Fuji, but it almost certainly has better AF. Looks like a good option

1

decibles t1_j0gm6fx wrote

It’s a 5D Mark IV without a mirror.

Is it a good camera? Sure. Is it ready for a refresh. Yes.

Edit: fixed a typo because Roman numerals are hard

2

SlackerAccount t1_j0gyizi wrote

7.1?

5

Greenpoint_Blank t1_j0hlhau wrote

I think it is more a ding on the non L rf lenses. They are pretty slow for the price and some of which use plastic elements. The 85mm f2.0 rather than a 1.8 for example on the slow side and the 50mm 1.8 that definitely uses plastic elements.

The real issue is that canon went after both Samyang and Viltrox for making cheaper and better 85mm and 35mm rf autofocus lenses. So basically you either have to adapt older ef Lenes many of which are 20+ years old and not really made for modern sensors and AF or pay the L premium or settle for sharp but slower rf non L glass that is kinda over priced.

2

byDMP t1_j0kfm23 wrote

>I think it is more a ding on the non L rf lenses. They are pretty slow for the price and some of which use plastic elements. The 85mm f2.0 rather than a 1.8 for example on the slow side and the 50mm 1.8 that definitely uses plastic elements.

The RF 85/2 lost 1/3 stop to its EF predecessor while the RF 35/1.8 gained 1/3; it's a minor difference and f/2 is definitely not slow. But yes, the variable zooms are slower at their longer ends.

Canon have been using plastic in some of their optical designs for many years now; it's nothing new or bad, and hasn't just been used in lower end models, either.

>The real issue is that canon went after both Samyang and Viltrox for making cheaper and better 85mm and 35mm rf autofocus lenses. So basically you either have to adapt older ef Lenes many of which are 20+ years old and not really made for modern sensors and AF or pay the L premium or settle for sharp but slower rf non L glass that is kinda over priced.

Yes there are some 20+ y.o. EF designs, there are also plenty of newer designs too. But I'm yet to adapt an EF lens onto RF that hasn't AF'd at least as well—if not better—on the mirrorless body than on Canon's DSLRs. As for sensors, Canon's most-demanding FF sensor is still the 50MP one in the 5DSr; in APS-C it's the 33MP one in the R7, essentially the same as that in the 90D's, so it's not like the mirrorless sensors are any more demanding than those in the DSLR lineup.

Your summary of lens options neglects to mention that 3rd party EF lenses can also be used, something that frequently gets overlooked by people complaining about a lack of options on RF. If 3rd party optics and pricing are so compelling, people can simply adapt it.

Finally, the non-L RF lens pricing is actually fairly competitive when you start comparing it to other brands and the launch prices of comparable EF models.

1

dj-Paper_clip t1_j0j41dk wrote

I have been paid for my photography for almost 10 years now. I just ditched my full frame for a crop Fuji. There are very few instances where someone is going to notice the difference between full frame and crop.

1

byDMP t1_j0kga5k wrote

>I have been paid for my photography for almost 10 years now. I just ditched my full frame for a crop Fuji. There are very few instances where someone is going to notice the difference between full frame and crop.

By the same logic you could probably ditch your crop Fuji setup and replace it with M4/3—there are likewise few instances where someone is going to notice the difference between APS-C and M4/3...

1

dj-Paper_clip t1_j0m0m64 wrote

Probably could as long as you can find one with enough megapixels for your uses. But the only two cameras that could possibly considered a pro level 4/3rds camera are around $2,000, so it’s not really worth doing, mostly because of the lens options available. Big difference between the crop factors as well, so anyone shooting real wide will have issues finding lenses.

There are more lenses available for Fuji x mount, than all of the 4/3 lenses combined.

1

G8M8N8 t1_j0hjfb2 wrote

RP body only was $600 on the canon refurb store

0