Mirrorless Convert Buys DSLR

[photoflyer]

I'm a mirrorless convert. I got the R6 and truly enjoy using it. But, while it is not a done deal as they have to get the camera from another store, on Friday I should be getting a Canon 7D Mark II with only 19k on the shutter. I've enjoyed watching folks on the forum dig their heals in for and against mirrorless. In the end these are just tools and, for now, the 7D Mark II is the best tool, for me, for what I need.

I've said before, if Canon produced a pro grade APS-C body with the AF and IBIS that is on the R6 I would be first in line. I'm tired of waiting. The guys at the shop said the 7D Mark II has better AF than the 90D and while both are solid, it is a bit more durable. I'm just hoping that in a few months I can trade it in to the same shop for an R7.

Anyone want to talk me out of it? There is still time.

 

[Space Face]

While I'm still interested in going mirrorless and waiting to see what (if anything) Canon bring out the FF prosumer range in the next year or so, I can't see me giving up on the DSLR at any time soon.

 

[Jeff15]

Selling all my heavy DSLR gear was the best thing I have ever done in my hobby, I now use lightweight cameras that are far easier to carry...

 

[ac12]

In my case, the lens chooses the camera.

I switched from Nikon DX/APS-C to Olympus m4/3.
Except for the Nikon 70-200/4. Olympus does not have a lens that handles as nicely. Easy to zoom with my fingers, I don't have to use my hand to turn the zoom ring. So that lens keeps me shooting a dSLR.
Unfortunately, even if there were an automated Nikon to m4/3 adapter, the 70-200 on a m4/3 camera is too much magnification on the short end.

 

[jcdeboever]

Cameras are tools.

 

[photoflyer]

In my case, the lens chooses the camera.

True, glass is more important. In this case I have an investment in L series glass and I want a crop sensor body that gets more out of it. While I was in the shop they did say the had a used 600 mm F 4 L for $ 8000. When I told my wife, jokingly, she burst out laughing. She didn't fall for the "yeah, but new they're like 13k!". Plus it is way to portable.

 

[ac12]

If the zoom ring on the Olympus 40-150/2.8 was as light as the Nikon 70-200/4, I would have completely switched.
But it was significantly stiffer, for me, not finger light. So the 40-150/2.8 was a no-go for use on the football field.
It is either heavy grease or tight weather sealing gasket.

 

[photoflyer]

So today the rumor mill claims the mirrorless 7D will be out middle of next year...the day before my "new" 7D Mark II arrives. So I'll get to use it for 9 months before trading it in, unless the "new" gear is as tough as they say it is. I very much value durability and water sealing.

 

[Dave Maciak]

Cameras are tools.

Yes they are. I have yet to see or experience a camera with all the "whiz-bang" features so many lust for but--
lack the button or switch that turns on skill and creativity.
Indeed, just tools.

 

[AlgarveCyclist]

I hardly ever used my Canon 5D IV. I just didn’t like the weight of it outside of specific holiday situations where it was ok.

I moved to the mirrorless R and much preferred the lighter weight and EVF. I had EF glass but dipped into the RF system with RF35 and 24-240.

I then stepped up to the R5 for the improved AF, IBIS and more MP, selling all my EF lenses and getting 24-105L, 70-200 2.8L and 100-500L initially.
The lighter body coupled with lighter lenses is much nicer. The R3 is going in the wrong direction again for me, the R5/R6 are ideal for what I want.

But all this gets you is a weight saving and some niceties that can make capturing the images we want a bit easier. It doesn’t make great DSLR’s like the 7D suddenly not worth having. Indeed, every DSLR in the last decade is a very capable tool. We should just buy what we feel we will use most that fits our budgets best.

 

[photoflyer]

I hardly ever used my Canon 5D IV. I just didn’t like the weight of it outside of specific holiday situations where it was ok.

I moved to the mirrorless R and much preferred the lighter weight and EVF. I had EF glass but dipped into the RF system with RF35 and 24-240.

I then stepped up to the R5 for the improved AF, IBIS and more MP, selling all my EF lenses and getting 24-105L, 70-200 2.8L and 100-500L initially.
The lighter body coupled with lighter lenses is much nicer. The R3 is going in the wrong direction again for me, the R5/R6 are ideal for what I want.

But all this gets you is a weight saving and some niceties that can make capturing the images we want a bit easier. It doesn’t make great DSLR’s like the 7D suddenly not worth having. Indeed, every DSLR in the last decade is a very capable tool. We should just buy what we feel we will use most that fits our budgets best.

It just goes to show how everyone has different preferences. I got the battery grip for the R6 because I can grip it better and the ancillary benefit of longer battery life. However, I'm and outlier. Weight is not an issue for me. I still lift weights four days a week.

I guess, I have to admit, I really like the metal feel of the L series lenses. I understand that plastics today may actually be just as rugged as the metal lenses and certainly much lighter, but there is just something about big bad white glass.

I was planning to trade the 7D Mark II in when the R7 hits the street but I like its rugged build quality so much I'm going to keep it.

 

[AlgarveCyclist]

It just goes to show how everyone has different preferences. I got the battery grip for the R6 because I can grip it better and the ancillary benefit of longer battery life. However, I'm and outlier. Weight is not an issue for me. I still lift weights four days a week.

I guess, I have to admit, I really like the metal feel of the L series lenses. I understand that plastics today may actually be just as rugged as the metal lenses and certainly much lighter, but there is just something about big bad white glass.

I was planning to trade the 7D Mark II in when the R7 hits the street but I like its rugged build quality so much I'm going to keep it.

For me the weight is not an issue from a strength perspective, I too am in very good shape, top 1% fitness-wise for my age as a competitive road cyclist (sprinter) and mountain biker who trains 3-5 hours a day.

It’s the bulk. I find it cumbersome and annoying for everyday use and so my DSLR’s got relatively little use vs what I could carry in my pocket. I am very active, I want to be light and fast. Nimble even, as I move over rocky, hiking terrain etc.

If I am on a city break or safari, I’m happy to have the camera in my hand all day. It’s the rest of the time and the more discreet, the less bulky R gets a bit more use, albeit still nowhere near as much as what I can carry in my pocket.

On Safari trips I’d have my 5D IV and 7D II together. For that activity carrying both, the 7 with a 100-400, 5 with a 24-105, was fine. Great cameras. But only ever used on trips like that. The R5 is getting more use outside of trips like that, I’m more inclined to grab it for a hike for example.

I reckon the R7 will match the 7D II for build quality. The R5 certainly matches the 5D IV.

As for the new plastic L lenses, my 100-500 and 70-200 2.8 certainly seem to be every bit as good quality as my previous EF glass. But more compact, lighter, less bulky to have with you. I also like that the tripod collars are removable since I rarely use a tripod and the lenses look great without them, no indentation to indicate a collar was there. Easier to pack in smaller bags for trips away.

The R and RF systems are an evolution in the right direction for me - but I'd like them to keep working at smaller, less bulky kit.

 

[RacePhoto]

Yeah old thread but I wonder how this is going?

So today the rumor mill claims the mirrorless 7D will be out middle of next year...the day before my "new" 7D Mark II arrives. So I'll get to use it for 9 months before trading it in, unless the "new" gear is as tough as they say it is. I very much value durability and water sealing.

Mirrorless 7D, then why make a R7? Oh right, lenses. But I'm waiting for the R7 and if the 7D has the same features and mirrorless, why?

Lots of rumors, I tried to find anything new, I didn't. I'm not Canon, but lets say this is the end of the D line. One last camera, to replace the former 80-D and the 7-D and all the APS-C DSLR cameras with one last blast? People have the EF lenses, Canon has the new technology, software, sensor and a continued demand from people who aren't ready to jump to the R yet.

APS-C R, then why make a new EF camera?

I'm doing fine with what I have, but I wouldn't mind a R camera with some of the electronics, features, higher ISO with less noise.I guess most of that is the mirrorless sensor? Bigger images isn't something on my list.

 

[mrca]

I got one of those R cameras in the mail FREE. I had ordered $30 of film developing chemicals for color film and got the $3000 camera and $1000 in the mail instead. I sent them back for something worthwhile, developing chemicals. If folks spent more time and money on mastering the craft and less on hand wringing over cameras, their work would improve substantially. Sorry, all a cute latest and greatest light recorder(that's all a camera is) will do is possibly give even sharper crap. If you have nothing to say with the image, a camera won't correct that, or if don't have a clue about lighting, composition or posing, a camera won't correct that. Instead of spending a couple thousand for a new camera, spend the time and money , a couple HUNDRED, taking good classes. But, then, that takes work and self criticism, things most folks avoid and as a result they just take snap shots with $3000 in gear. Screw mirrorless, I went sensorless. 3 of my cameras don't need batteries, one doesn't even take them. Imagine going on a shoot without having to worry about charging batteries. And living without an lcd or burst or each shot costing $3 so there is no spray and pray, there is carefully crafting an image. Keeper percentage has to be closer to 100% not 0.