Get R now, wait, pass, or switch?

Ed Rizk wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

I still want your 6D2 and lenses.

Ewwww! Are there people who actually want a 6D2?

Why not? I've seen the pictures you take with it.

Funny you mention it! I haven't been posting pics much since I got the even the 6D, much less the 6D2. But, your compliment is appreciated!

Well, go back to the 5D then, and post some pictures.

Heh! I never did sell my 5D -- kept it as a backup for the 6D (but never used it) and by the time I realized I'd never use it, it wasn't worth selling -- the nostalgia I hold for it is worth more than the couple of hundred I could get for it (I regret selling my 50 / 1.2L, too, for the same nostalgia reasons, but I needed to sell it to fund the 50 / 1.4A -- the 6D I sold as quickly as I could, though, when I got the 6D2).

I hate selling old equipment of any kind. I'd rater give it to someone that needs it than lose so much money on it. I generally sell my old cars really cheap to friends of my sons or people I know, unless they are really trashed. At least I did somebody some good that way.

Yeah -- I just gave my whole SL1 setup that I got for my daughter (which she never used) to my daughter's friend to use "indefinitely".

I like the 6D. The 6D2 would give me an articulating screen and better AF.

Exactly so. It's funny, 'cause the 6D "should have been" what the 6D2 is and the 6D2 "should have been" the R. In my opinion, at least.

The R will come down to the same price soon enough. I'll get one then.

That's the plan.

Technology is very interesting. I don't crave it for its own sake, though.

Indeed. Why do I want the R? Smaller and lighter than the 6D2

Do you think it will make that much difference? With the monster lenses, it's still pretty big. My 60D kit is smaller enough to make a difference, but it's not a game changing difference except with the 55-250 vs the 6 with the 100-400.

No, it won't make that much of a difference -- less than the difference between the 5D and 6D2. What would make a difference is the Z7, but due to the number of EF lenses I have (and the cost of the Z7), I'm kinda loathe to switch systems. The Z6 is a lot cheaper, of course, but I feel the MP count of the Z7 puts me at the point I'd never want for more, even when 100 MP cameras come out.

To be perfectly honest, if the R had the same sensor as the K1 (along with its IBIS and pixel-shift image stacking), that would do it for me. At that point, I will have reached the "good enough" point to where I'd never really "need" any more.

Those are all cool features. I wonder about the trade offs. I guess you give up RAW files with any kind of in camera image stacking.

Oh shoot -- no, I want that pixel-shift image stacking to be in the RAW file.  The K1 does that with RAW, doesn't it?

Battery and processing power seems cheap enough these days, but maybe it still matters. Is the reliability of the camera affected by the moving sensor? Pentax guys claim great reliability.

As do the Olympus people.  Added bonus -- less centering problems with the lens.

Of course, with regards to the "success" of my photography, that point was reached long ago with the 5D, so, I guess what I'm saying is, well, what am I saying?

(before the 6D2 came out, I said that a camera that split the size of the SL1 and 6D would be perfect, and, well, that's the R)

I want to swap my APSc gear for the SL2 with the smaller wide and prime lenses and a super zoom for travel by plane. I don't worry about size when traveling by car.

When I go to Japan, I bring all my lenses -- they fit in a single backpack (with the camera and one lens in the bag I carry around with me). The R won't change that except that if I got the 28-70 / 2, it would take the place of the 24 / 1.4A, 35 / 1.4A, 50 / 1.4A, and 70 / 2.8A macro. So, even though the 28-70 / 2 is relatively large, it would be significantly more convenient (although I'd give up a stop and macro, but it's worth that trade).

I'm there. Everything but my 100-400 fits into my back pack. The problem is that it requires me to check baggage on short trips. If I'm traveling with people, they all carry everything on and have to wait 30 minutes for me to get my checked baggage. On a long trip, where everyone checks baggage anyway, it's less of a problem.

Of course, if you go to one camera and one lens, you can just put it over your shoulder and still carry on. Interesting thought.

I've never checked my camera gear -- it always goes with me.

, better AF (although I'm very happy with the 6D2 AF) to include eye AF,

I have a nystagmus. That eye AF would just freak out with me. I love the idea of focus down to -6 EV, though.

Wait -- "eye AF" isn't where the AF point is chosen with your eye, is it? I thought it was where the camera's AF focused on the [near] eye of the subject.

I thought it was like the old EOS Elan where the focus point followed the eye. A system focusing on the subject's eye would be great. I miss that perfect focus on the eye more often than not, probably for the same reason the system following my eye wouldn't work.

Pretty sure it's not that; rather, it tracks the subject's [near] eye.

more base ISO DR (assuming it's pretty much the same sensor as the 5D4), and IBIS. Whoops! Strike the last one.

If the next one has IBIS........

I'd bet heavily against it. The reason the Z has IBIS is because Nikon is buying the Sony sensor assembly which comes with IBIS. Canon has no interest in IBIS in the near future. It is because of that, that I am considering hanging on to the 6D2 for a while to see where things go, and then deciding if switching to the Z isn't the best move.

The Nikon looks good. They are well behind Canon in lenses for the new mount, though...

They're f/1.8 primes look mighty good!

...as they are in DSLR ultra wide lenses. Wider is better.

Wide is better still with lots of pixels.  Thus, the Z7.

Anyway, is it worth $2K for that, assuming that's the price of a refurb after tax? Dunno. Might be smarter to wait for the next-gen. Truth be told, I'd swap my entire kit for an R + 28-70 / 2, which would be a great move since that costs more than my whole kit.

That's what is interesting about the R. The technocrats rave about the lenses that could be created for the shorter flange cameras, but the lenses have never materialize before. Now we have lenses that are better enough to make me actually care whether I have mirror less or not. I can't wait for the ultra wide RF lenses.

I'm thinking there will be no telephoto advantage to the new mount,

Theoretically, as I understand it, there is no design advantage to any lens where the minimum focal length is greater than the old flange distance. Sports and wildlife photographers should be totally underwhelmed.

Agreed.

so my 70-200 / 4L IS II will be fine on the Z. Add in the 28-70 / 2 and a UWA zoom (RF 16-35 / 2.8), and I think that three lens kit will do me with a modest size kit that will "allow" me to give up primes for zooms.

Interesting. I just got my second prime (3'rd if you count my old 18mm Quantaray for my short film efforts in the late 80s early 90s) the 17TSE. It's pretty amazing. I always thought the "color and contrast" thing was less important than it now appears to be. Now that I'm looking for it, even my little junk 35 F2 pre IS makes some interesting files from time to time.

I'm thinking that the 28-70 / 2 is a "bag-o-primes".  If there's a significant IQ advantage to primes, stop-for-stop, then that's another story.  Then I'd probably go with primes supplemented by an f/4 IS zoom.

As you move to zooms, I'm thinking about more primes. I'm going to think a lot, because I hate spending real money for something I don't get a lot of use out of, no matter how prosperous I am.

So say we all!