When I moved to the R7 for birding, I was initially annoyed by having to replace my Sigma 150-600C and Tamron 100-400 Di VC. But the RF 100-500 was worth every penny. It is lighter than the EF lenses it replaced; the dual focus motors are fast and accurate; the OIS works well with th R7 IBIS; the 0.9m minimum focal distance provides macro flexibility; and the image quality is simply spectacular. As long as Canon provides budger options, like the RF 100-400 and the F11 primes at the long end, 9:07 I don't feel like I'm missing anything.
I greatly simplified my lens kit when I moved from DSLR to Mirrorless (which involved a brand change to Canon). I have 3 RF L lenses (100-500, 100mm macro, 24-105 F4). 1 STM lens (16mm F2.8) and one RF-S lens (10-18). My wife and I share a 18-150 on occasion. I had over a dozen lenses with the other brand DSLR. In reviewing my library, close to 90% of my shots can be covered with just 3 of the lenses. Add in the 16 and the 10-18 and over 99% of my photography needs are covered. If I need something different for a special project, I can rent. Long away around to say I really have little interest in 3rd party lenses. I understand why people might and that's fine but not something that is important for my photo work.
I b itch about canon a lot but I want to say why I bought it. I sold all my Sony equipment with an A7iii because I wanted “something else” Sony’s consistent shutter failures which has continued to this day told me Sony was a toy camera and I hated the feeling of their cameras in my hands. It was when the A7RIV was released and it said “improved weathersealing” and as a trucker I had a lot of time to think about that statement. It told me Sony dangles the carrot. 🥕 Keeping you slightly away from a quality product with each release. I initially planned to get a Nikon Z6ii but then I realised an R6 was probably my jam… but the R5 was only one weeks pay more. On Black Friday 2020 Canon did amazing deals with these cameras I picked up an R5 and 24-70 RF for less money than the Nikon Z6ii and 24-70 was. I truly believe that we photographers should use whatever brand gives us a buzz but we should all have a canon or Nikon camera because they are the tools for the craftsman. They are dependable. Sony’s shutter issue is like buying a really nice Kia. Sure it can keep up with the big boys like Toyota and Honda but you just know one day that engine will pop.
You are exactly correct. The first canon camera I bought when I got back from the Viet Nam war . I’m old 76 and have a number of canon cameras and lens that I have sold because I thought I needed them. I still have lenses many
Amar, good video. In my view, the only thing that mirrorless has brought to the table over DSLRs is AF and video. I do not think IQ is any better, if anything it may be worse. Last year I compared images I took with the 6D and 5D4 with images I took with the R6 and R5 and concluded that the IQ from the DSLRs was just as good, if not better, particularly with the 6D. In fact, I believe the IQ from the R5 was inferior. To me, the IQ from the R5 was missing something particularly in challenging lighting conditions. The tonal gradations were just not as pleasing as on the 6D in particular. Whether it’s the RF lenses or the cameras, I am not sure. One thing I am certain of is that the EF 16MM-35MM F4 L smokes the RF 14MM-35MM F4 L, which sucks IMO. I also think the original 24MM-105MM F4 renders better than the RF version. So, I sold the R5 and some film cameras and replaced them with the 6D and 5D classic and repurchased a few EF lenses to go with the 50MM 1.2 and 70MM - 200MM f2.8 which I retained. I also bought a Nikon D700 and D750 to used old Nikkor MF lenses from the film days along with a few Nikkor AF lenses. I am much happier now and taking many more pictures once again. I kept the R6 for situations in which I want the better AF.
I still enjoy shooting with Neo-vintage DSLR cameras from Canon and Nikon e.g. Nikon D850 DSLR as it reminds me of film cameras but with far better autofocus. I'm really impressed with the cinematic rendering of Nikon F-mount and Canon EF lenses. They are my first choice for travel and portrait photography.
Amar, thanks for the interesting analysis of Canon's marketing strategy as it relates to market share, focal lengths and lens selection. I shoot Canon for its color palette, ergonomics, technical innovation and lenses. With 45 RF lenses and numerous EF lenses I don't really require 3rd party support as with Sony lenses e.g. Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VXD G2 E-mount lens.
I would argue no one really likes adapting glass. I think most non-pros want access to less expensive native mount glass that performs very close to OEM glass. Pros will usually buy the best OEM glass even if 90% of the time no one can tell the difference. The difference is usually there but third party manufacturers have upped their game and can come very close, and even occasionally besting, first party glass at far lower prices. That’s what I would say most serious enthusiasts, and those making a living from photography, would buy who don’t have the budget for the OEM glass and want those options.
@@Jessehermansonphoto when you’re looking for faster lenses it’s almost like you wanting a Mercedes-Benz for the price of a Toyota. That’s not going to happen. you have brands like Genesis, which are wannabe luxury cars at affordable price. It’s the same story here. If you want high-quality fast class by used ones. It amazes me how people feel when they have various limited funds that they they are entitled to the more luxurious and expensive things within their budget. Just to give you a little insight canon has made many prime lenses that are 2.8 under $500 but we choose not to look at that because we want to get our narrative to be the loudest.
Here's the deal: Can Canon survive 2025 without a third-party full frame? Yes. Beyond that, it becomes questionable. Nikon went down the same path as Canon with ZF system by not allowing third-party support, and Nikon turned it around. Nikon has actually produced more new glass than Sony and Canon. Overall, people don't want to adapt ef lenses to Rf bodies. They want native glass with a new camera. Canon's prices are high, and we can not skate over that fact, but so is new Nikon glass and new Sony glass. The difference is that Nikon is welcoming third-party support, and Sony has always had it. Sony has a huge amount of native third-party glass along with tons of their own used glass in the secondary market. Canon has no secondary market to speak of RF glass. The number 1 status changes from period to period. It was Sony, and now it's Canon. I personally care more about lighting than I do cameras. They have ef, and they also have native Stm glass, but people want the regular RF and a solid secondary used market, if we are being honest. Canon is a great camera company. If you keep telling your market no, they will eventually tell you no. Canon is bending because they are starting with APSC lenses. I love Nikon, but at the time I switched, the smart business decision was Sony. This was before the RF mount and before the Nikon z6ii. I started with Canon for film and with their first digital camera, and the only reason I don't have an R3 in my hands right now is the lens situation. For Sony, I have GM glass, Sigma, Dzofilm, and Tamron. That's what I want for Canon. I have shot the R3, and I would be lying if I said that I didn't love it. But I wouldn't change my business model over to Canon, Canon would be just for me personally. Nikon, Sony, and Fuji want Canon to keep this up, especially Nikon, so they can get some of their sales. Sony as an overall company, not their camera division has more money at its disposal than Fuji, Canon and Nikon combined, and they could easily buy either of these companies. If you aren't hybrid as a business, you are behind and if AI is not a part of your preparation of your business model for the future and plan for it. You will stay behind. You make excellent points here and Nikon and Canon have largely caught up, but being honest neither company has an answer for the A9III and when they do, Sony will hit them again. 😊You are so right about the old Dslr bodies, I have done a shoot with a Nikon D700 and Nikon d3s that no one would ask if it was a 12mp camera.
I'm enjoying the cheaper EF Market. Just picked up a used 70-200 f2.8 II from Japan for 1k (mint) for my AF needs. I can't MF on a moving person for anything lol. There are cheaper versions out there, but they were a bit beat up.
How is the image quality and character using an R5 with non L-line Canon RF glass vs L glass? And is it better to purchase L-line EF glass with an adapter?
@@elliotresnick5433 in short yes I would buy the EFL lenses and put those on with an adapter on the modern bodies. This does not mean the non-LRF lenses are no good. They are still outstanding. You have to find what you like in the older glass and go for it. Just to warn you lately EFL lenses have been going up in price.
@ I bought the RF 35mm f/1.4L with R5 Mk2 because the that lens was compact. It’s counterintuitive that lighter more compact non-L line lenses costing a fraction of the price approach the quality of L lenses. I’d like a compact zoom lens now
I cannot recommend anyone buy canon. Whilst I use the R5 happily there is an unhappiness that I’m using lenses which are too heavy or not exactly what I want. Call me fussy but I hate the white hoods on the 70-200. Canon never gave us a professional lightweight 50mm lens in the EF and it was still so successful. How is that possible?
@@robmcd well I shot over 200 weddings with a 50 1.4 which was super light and had no major issues other than some chromatic aberration. What you fail to overlook is what did canon really give you? I’m not being a fanboy. I’m getting you to think more logically. I understand. The weight is a problem for some. If that’s the case then you should consider a smaller system and maybe shoot micro 4/3.
@@camerasutra247 the 50 1.4 falls apart. Maybe your copy was a unicorn. I have the Fuji XH2S which was great but Fuji ruined it somehow. Below 640 iso the Fuji images are absolutely incredible if you get focus and have quality light. The R5 sensor is so good that F2 is better than 1.4 on a crop sensor. I don’t care about optical excellence I just care about a durable build quality. The RF 50 1.8 is a great lens but the 35 irritates me with its extending barrel. If Sigma released their I series lenses for RF I’d be a pig in sh!t. Or if canon gave us a 35mm F2 L IS holy smokes could you imagine? I’d be $2000 for that if it was 400g or less.
@ they had higher quality glass however back to the weight problem again. That line was just fine. You’ll be shocked at how many 30 x 40 prints. I sold from that and add brides that tears in their eyes.
Amarjeet, The people probably have the same issues with these 45- RF lenses as me and you. There is the RF 24 F1.8/ RF 24 Hybrid and it still holds you back because you don't want to struggle between: Gold-ring/Red-ring quality/ focus by wire/ internal-external focus expanding / EF adapters etc. I bought the RF 28 shortly after I got the R7. But I already had two EF 28's. I still pick the EF 28mm F1.8 Goldring above the RF 28mm pancake for APS-C. ''Preferences like those can happen to me with every new RF release.'' Like why do I need 3 of those 28mm Primes??? I do regret selling the EF-m M50 + EF-m 32mm to some degree. At the same time I do not need any new gear, nor want to get rid of the stuff I already own. I have not made my mind up set wether I might snag any of the latest RF-s Sigma 33/56mm primes. Ps: In 2024 I bought 1 RF-s lens + 1 EF lens. Sold 2 of mine EF lenses. That was a steady year -'gear wise'.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
When I moved to the R7 for birding, I was initially annoyed by having to replace my Sigma 150-600C and Tamron 100-400 Di VC. But the RF 100-500 was worth every penny. It is lighter than the EF lenses it replaced; the dual focus motors are fast and accurate; the OIS works well with th R7 IBIS; the 0.9m minimum focal distance provides macro flexibility; and the image quality is simply spectacular. As long as Canon provides budger options, like the RF 100-400 and the F11 primes at the long end, 9:07 I don't feel like I'm missing anything.
@@wellingtoncrescent2480 Great points thank you for keeping it real
I greatly simplified my lens kit when I moved from DSLR to Mirrorless (which involved a brand change to Canon). I have 3 RF L lenses (100-500, 100mm macro, 24-105 F4). 1 STM lens (16mm F2.8) and one RF-S lens (10-18). My wife and I share a 18-150 on occasion. I had over a dozen lenses with the other brand DSLR. In reviewing my library, close to 90% of my shots can be covered with just 3 of the lenses. Add in the 16 and the 10-18 and over 99% of my photography needs are covered. If I need something different for a special project, I can rent. Long away around to say I really have little interest in 3rd party lenses. I understand why people might and that's fine but not something that is important for my photo work.
@@JeffandLeslie 👍
I b itch about canon a lot but I want to say why I bought it.
I sold all my Sony equipment with an A7iii because I wanted “something else”
Sony’s consistent shutter failures which has continued to this day told me Sony was a toy camera and I hated the feeling of their cameras in my hands.
It was when the A7RIV was released and it said “improved weathersealing” and as a trucker I had a lot of time to think about that statement.
It told me Sony dangles the carrot. 🥕 Keeping you slightly away from a quality product with each release.
I initially planned to get a Nikon Z6ii but then I realised an R6 was probably my jam… but the R5 was only one weeks pay more. On Black Friday 2020 Canon did amazing deals with these cameras I picked up an R5 and 24-70 RF for less money than the Nikon Z6ii and 24-70 was.
I truly believe that we photographers should use whatever brand gives us a buzz but we should all have a canon or Nikon camera because they are the tools for the craftsman. They are dependable. Sony’s shutter issue is like buying a really nice Kia. Sure it can keep up with the big boys like Toyota and Honda but you just know one day that engine will pop.
@@robmcd 😂❤️
You are exactly correct. The first canon camera I bought when I got back from the Viet Nam war . I’m old 76 and have a number of canon cameras and lens that I have sold because I thought I needed them. I still have lenses many
@@BillDowsell awesome welcome to the channel
So I still have 4 canon cameras and my best AE1 Film. R3 R5 1dx markiii . Yes film,mirror,DSLR and lenses. Canon will be just fine
@ 👍
Amar, good video. In my view, the only thing that mirrorless has brought to the table over DSLRs is AF and video. I do not think IQ is any better, if anything it may be worse. Last year I compared images I took with the 6D and 5D4 with images I took with the R6 and R5 and concluded that the IQ from the DSLRs was just as good, if not better, particularly with the 6D. In fact, I believe the IQ from the R5 was inferior. To me, the IQ from the R5 was missing something particularly in challenging lighting conditions. The tonal gradations were just not as pleasing as on the 6D in particular. Whether it’s the RF lenses or the cameras, I am not sure. One thing I am certain of is that the EF 16MM-35MM F4 L smokes the RF 14MM-35MM F4 L, which sucks IMO. I also think the original 24MM-105MM F4 renders better than the RF version.
So, I sold the R5 and some film cameras and replaced them with the 6D and 5D classic and repurchased a few EF lenses to go with the 50MM 1.2 and 70MM - 200MM f2.8 which I retained. I also bought a Nikon D700 and D750 to used old Nikkor MF lenses from the film days along with a few Nikkor AF lenses. I am much happier now and taking many more pictures once again. I kept the R6 for situations in which I want the better AF.
😊 I am glad I kept some of my dslrs. Still on the hunt for a good d700.
I still enjoy shooting with Neo-vintage DSLR cameras from Canon and Nikon e.g. Nikon D850 DSLR as it reminds me of film cameras but with far better autofocus. I'm really impressed with the cinematic rendering of Nikon F-mount and Canon EF lenses. They are my first choice for travel and portrait photography.
❤️
Amar, thanks for the interesting analysis of Canon's marketing strategy as it relates to market share, focal lengths and lens selection. I shoot Canon for its color palette, ergonomics, technical innovation and lenses. With 45 RF lenses and numerous EF lenses I don't really require 3rd party support as with Sony lenses e.g. Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 VXD G2 E-mount lens.
@@josephpeppard561 spot on and yes Tampon lenses are great 😊
Lighting is fantastic.
❤️
The one, and only reason I am staying with Sony is the great Tamron lenses I can get at great prices.
@@orangeofmars2835 great
Canon will be just fine.
@@castieldiallo2945 👍
I would argue no one really likes adapting glass. I think most non-pros want access to less expensive native mount glass that performs very close to OEM glass. Pros will usually buy the best OEM glass even if 90% of the time no one can tell the difference. The difference is usually there but third party manufacturers have upped their game and can come very close, and even occasionally besting, first party glass at far lower prices. That’s what I would say most serious enthusiasts, and those making a living from photography, would buy who don’t have the budget for the OEM glass and want those options.
👍
It’s the price… people would like a F2.8 lens for around 1000 bucks. It’s not the lack of focal length options.
@@Jessehermansonphoto when you’re looking for faster lenses it’s almost like you wanting a Mercedes-Benz for the price of a Toyota. That’s not going to happen. you have brands like Genesis, which are wannabe luxury cars at affordable price. It’s the same story here. If you want high-quality fast class by used ones. It amazes me how people feel when they have various limited funds that they they are entitled to the more luxurious and expensive things within their budget. Just to give you a little insight canon has made many prime lenses that are 2.8 under $500 but we choose not to look at that because we want to get our narrative to be the loudest.
Your face looks sharp and pleasing.
❤️
Here's the deal: Can Canon survive 2025 without a third-party full frame? Yes. Beyond that, it becomes questionable.
Nikon went down the same path as Canon with ZF system by not allowing third-party support, and Nikon turned it around.
Nikon has actually produced more new glass than Sony and Canon. Overall, people don't want to adapt ef lenses to Rf bodies. They want native glass with a new camera.
Canon's prices are high, and we can not skate over that fact, but so is new Nikon glass and new Sony glass.
The difference is that Nikon is welcoming third-party support, and Sony has always had it.
Sony has a huge amount of native third-party glass along with tons of their own used glass in the secondary market.
Canon has no secondary market to speak of RF glass. The number 1 status changes from period to period. It was Sony, and now it's Canon. I personally care more about lighting than I do cameras.
They have ef, and they also have native Stm glass, but people want the regular RF and a solid secondary used market, if we are being honest. Canon is a great camera company.
If you keep telling your market no, they will eventually tell you no. Canon is bending because they are starting with APSC lenses.
I love Nikon, but at the time I switched, the smart business decision was Sony. This was before the RF mount and before the Nikon z6ii.
I started with Canon for film and with their first digital camera, and the only reason I don't have an R3 in my hands right now is the lens situation.
For Sony, I have GM glass, Sigma, Dzofilm, and Tamron. That's what I want for Canon. I have shot the R3, and I would be lying if I said that I didn't love it.
But I wouldn't change my business model over to Canon, Canon would be just for me personally.
Nikon, Sony, and Fuji want Canon to keep this up, especially Nikon, so they can get some of their sales.
Sony as an overall company, not their camera division has more money at its disposal than Fuji, Canon and Nikon combined, and they could easily buy either of these companies.
If you aren't hybrid as a business, you are behind and if AI is not a part of your preparation of your business model for the future and plan for it. You will stay behind. You make excellent points here and Nikon and Canon have largely caught up, but being honest neither company has an answer for the A9III and when they do, Sony will hit them again.
😊You are so right about the old Dslr bodies, I have done a shoot with a Nikon D700 and Nikon d3s that no one would ask if it was a 12mp camera.
looking good
I'm enjoying the cheaper EF Market. Just picked up a used 70-200 f2.8 II from Japan for 1k (mint) for my AF needs. I can't MF on a moving person for anything lol. There are cheaper versions out there, but they were a bit beat up.
@@captainkanji1 they are stellar optuons
How is the image quality and character using an R5 with non L-line Canon RF glass vs L glass? And is it better to purchase L-line EF glass with an adapter?
I will show you in an upcoming video. It’s outstanding no issues whatsoever.
@ in advance of that upcoming video can you briefly respond to my questions?
@@elliotresnick5433 in short yes I would buy the EFL lenses and put those on with an adapter on the modern bodies. This does not mean the non-LRF lenses are no good. They are still outstanding. You have to find what you like in the older glass and go for it. Just to warn you lately EFL lenses have been going up in price.
@ I bought the RF 35mm f/1.4L with R5 Mk2 because the that lens was compact. It’s counterintuitive that lighter more compact non-L line lenses costing a fraction of the price approach the quality of L lenses. I’d like a compact zoom lens now
@ RF 70-200 f4 or 2.8
I cannot recommend anyone buy canon. Whilst I use the R5 happily there is an unhappiness that I’m using lenses which are too heavy or not exactly what I want.
Call me fussy but I hate the white hoods on the 70-200.
Canon never gave us a professional lightweight 50mm lens in the EF and it was still so successful. How is that possible?
@@robmcd well I shot over 200 weddings with a 50 1.4 which was super light and had no major issues other than some chromatic aberration. What you fail to overlook is what did canon really give you? I’m not being a fanboy. I’m getting you to think more logically. I understand. The weight is a problem for some. If that’s the case then you should consider a smaller system and maybe shoot micro 4/3.
@@camerasutra247 the 50 1.4 falls apart. Maybe your copy was a unicorn.
I have the Fuji XH2S which was great but Fuji ruined it somehow.
Below 640 iso the Fuji images are absolutely incredible if you get focus and have quality light.
The R5 sensor is so good that F2 is better than 1.4 on a crop sensor.
I don’t care about optical excellence I just care about a durable build quality. The RF 50 1.8 is a great lens but the 35 irritates me with its extending barrel.
If Sigma released their I series lenses for RF I’d be a pig in sh!t.
Or if canon gave us a 35mm F2 L IS holy smokes could you imagine? I’d be $2000 for that if it was 400g or less.
@ they had higher quality glass however back to the weight problem again. That line was just fine. You’ll be shocked at how many 30 x 40 prints. I sold from that and add brides that tears in their eyes.
@ image quality is what we’re being sucked in for. Sharpness is overrated.
@ there is nothing that the older lenses had issues with with image quality. This is all just cooked up.
Amarjeet, The people probably have the same issues with these 45- RF lenses as me and you. There is the RF 24 F1.8/ RF 24 Hybrid and it still holds you back because you don't want to struggle between: Gold-ring/Red-ring quality/ focus by wire/ internal-external focus expanding / EF adapters etc.
I bought the RF 28 shortly after I got the R7. But I already had two EF 28's. I still pick the EF 28mm F1.8 Goldring above the RF 28mm pancake for APS-C.
''Preferences like those can happen to me with every new RF release.'' Like why do I need 3 of those 28mm Primes???
I do regret selling the EF-m M50 + EF-m 32mm to some degree. At the same time I do not need any new gear, nor want to get rid of the stuff I already own.
I have not made my mind up set wether I might snag any of the latest RF-s Sigma 33/56mm primes.
Ps: In 2024 I bought 1 RF-s lens + 1 EF lens. Sold 2 of mine EF lenses. That was a steady year -'gear wise'.
@@bas4360 old gold, my friend I am on the pro now to rebuild my DSLR lens collection again. I wish I did not sell it feel really stupid now.