7D ll to EOS R Change Up?

[Donde]

I would love to save weight on my set up (7D ll+400 5.6+600ex-rt w/Better Beamer). Changing to the EOS R would save a half pound. A new smaller, lighter flash to go with the EOS R the Speedlight EL 100 has been announced but the specs don't look impressive. And add 4.5 oz for the adapter for my lens. Also I don't see a spot focus option listed for the EOS R but it must have something along those lines. I dunno...

 

[centauro74]

Yes, if you're doing landscape, portrait or architecture. If your're doing sports and wildlife not even close, you gonna have to wait for another model.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Overread]

The EOS R is jumping onto the mirrorless bandwaggon but with a fullframe sensor there isn't really that much weight to save in the lenses. The only real saving is the camera design not needing to be as big; and honestly once you're past around 200mm or so the mirrorless cameras seem more unbalanced and too small to be sensible to use with bigger lenses unless you are only ever tripod mounted (at which point weight saving is a nearly moot point).

I see mirrorless as a nice thing for people who want a more pocket or carry around system, but for anything sporty or longer its not really giving you any real world benefits besides being shiny and new. Myself the only mirrorless I've considered is the Olympus OME line because they generally have sporty settings and the smaller sensor means the lenses ARE smaller in size and also means a "fake" longer reach effect from the crop factor.

But otherwise I'd hold onto your 7DMII; esp as its getting to that point now where most are expecting a big year of camera releases from Canon next year - esp in the 7D line as the MII is now getting on a bit.

 

[Donde]

Thank you both. Overead that

 

[Donde]

Sorry, electric went out, typical, anyway thank you for that analysis. I'm convinced and will sit tight.

 

[photoflyer]

I purchased a T7i for travel because it is so much smaller (and less valuable) than my full frame. While the 7D mark II is really a pro grade camera and so exceeds the T7i in so many ways, you might consider it as a compliment to what you already have. It is APS-C so you will get the same reach and the image quality is very good. The low light performance may even be a bit better. It is consumer grade so not water sealed.

 

[Donde]

Good tip I will take a look.

 

[Derrel]

I looked at the new dPreview EOS R samples gallery; in my opinion the biggest difference I could see is a MAJOR movement upward in terms of image quality with the 30-megapixel, full-frame sensor in the EOS R. I've not be super-impressed with the EOS 7D II image quality...about threes tops less than the Nikon D7200...the thing about the EOS R sample images is the beauty of the images; lovely color, high resolution, a beautiful, modern sensor's results...I think there's a BIG difference in the EOS R and the 7D-II.

But the biggest EOS R system issue: it is a brand-new camera system...un-tested by many, un-known to most of us...not a proven quantity. As the dPreview article says, "The EOS R feels like a 'version 1 product'." https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/74...s-about-canon-and-the-rf-mount-s-future,,,abd their conclusion: "If you're a Canon DSLR shooter, it's probably not yet time to begin the migration across to the RF system, but the work the company has already done and its apparent approach make us believe it'll look increasingly compelling in the coming years"

 

[Overread]

I can see the R being very popular for street and for being "uncle bobs" camera - ergo expensive but also portable and nice at parties even if its not "really" that much smaller or lighter. I think if they give it a solid series of lenses under 100mm and a couple under 200mm it will sell well and have its own niche in the market.
The bonus being that for a lot of those kinds of ranges you can often get away with just a couple of lenses and a good old 50mm can do for most.



The sensor is neat to hear about and I'm thinking next year wil be a BIG year for Canon releasing new camera bodies with revamped new sensors.

 

[beagle100]

I can see the R being very popular for street and for being "uncle bobs" camera - ergo expensive but also portable and nice at parties even if its not "really" that much smaller or lighter. I think if they give it a solid series of lenses under 100mm and a couple under 200mm it will sell well and have its own niche in the market.
The bonus being that for a lot of those kinds of ranges you can often get away with just a couple of lenses and a good old 50mm can do for most.
he sensor is neat to hear about and I'm thinking next year wil be a BIG year for Canon releasing new camera bodies with revamped new sensors.

mirrorless is smaller and lighter and more portable for "uncle bobs"

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[TCampbell]

I can see the R being very popular for street and for being "uncle bobs" camera - ergo expensive but also portable and nice at parties even if its not "really" that much smaller or lighter.

And this has always been the part about "mirrorless" cameras that I've never understood.

I hear "it's smaller". Sure. But to me there's the "it fits in my pocket" category (e.g. phones) or "it doesn't fit in my pocket" (just about every other camera). This makes me wonder... what... exactly... is the point of a camera being smaller?

Growing up in film... I started with a medium format twin-lens reflex (Rolliecord) with 6x6cm negative size. Then 35mm format. But remember the instamatics with the cartridge (126 style) film. Then the pocket-instamatics with the 110 cartridge film. Then the "disk" cameras (remember those). Each time the negative was getting smaller... and smaller... and smaller. Meanwhile the picture quality was getting worse... and worse... and worse.

And this makes sense given Dawes' limit and the need to enlarge the negative size even more when producing a print. So in my mind... "small" cameras are seldom advantageous.

Up until somewhat recently, mirrorless cameras were smaller in every way... not just eliminating the mirror. But now we're getting to "full frame" mirrorless cameras and those are definitely not "small" mirrorless cameras. Sure... maybe a little thinner than a full-frame DSLR but I can't figure out how it being a little thinner is an advantage worthy of dumping DSLRs to move to a new platform.

I'm sure I'll check one out next time I'm at the local camera store.

 

[Overread]

I have to agree, part of it I think is marketing. Mirrorless is the "new hotness" and camera companies are just chasing it because its selling. I think for many it might because its not a DSLR and its a digital camera like their point and shoot it might feel more natural to move up too. Ergo slap a light 50mm on it and you're still able to shoot it at arms length with the LCD on the back.

So that could be another aspect.

I agree if I wanted mirrorless I'd be wanting a smaller sensor so that everything was indeed smaller and lighter; not just a little bit of weight shaved off here and there.

 

[photoflyer]

I hear "it's smaller". Sure. But to me there's the "it fits in my pocket" category (e.g. phones) or "it doesn't fit in my pocket" (just about every other camera). This makes me wonder... what... exactly... is the point of a camera being smaller?

I think there is a point of diminishing returns to "it's smaller". I got a T7i for travel because I did not want to pack the full frame: it is bigger and expensive. But, much smaller than the T7i and, for me, there will be ergonomic issues. Then again I don't mind the weight of my 70-200 f2.8. Of course these considerations will be specific to each person. It is nice to have choices.