Relative value new R MICL vs old DSLR

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
RH McCaslan Regular Member • Posts: 125
Re: Relative value new R MICL vs old DSLR

This is really a fascinating topic.  Thanks for raising it.

R2D2 wrote:

I don’t think the selection process has really changed, even though the technology is changing. Folks still need to assess their needs and see what fits their budget.


For those with an adequate budget, then it’s obvious where the technology and improved capabilities of mirrorless are taking us. We’re right smack in the middle of a major paradigm shift, second only to the advancement from film to digital. ML is going to change the way we shoot.

Really? I think that the shift is incredibly important for Camera manufacturers--it greatly reduces their costs by removing a lot of moving parts--, but for most photographers, what I'm seeing is evolutionary changes rather than revolutionary changes. Lot of the improvements in AF and burst rates are available in DSLR (eg., 1DX M3), albeit at a much higher price point

Lens improvements also appear to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.  Most of Canon's L releases are actually larger than EF counterparts with the notable exception of the  R 70-200L lens.  But, correct me if I'm wrong, I suspect that this lens could  have been produced as an EF lens.  One of the most startling characteristics of the new offerings is that despite overall better IQ, almost all the lenses have horrendous vignetting performance.

Thus, I don't really see that much of a paradigm shift.  Instead, I think that we will just see new features and innovations appear in mirrorless first and in DSLR later if at all.

I think for the funds-limited bang-for-the-buck crowd, that the used market and close-outs (esp for DSLRs) would be the most cost effective route, at least in the short term. Folks are going to be unloading their DSLRs in droves (at least in the Canon world). EF lenses will follow, but will still remain viable for the foreseeable future (they’ll be THE choice for bargain hunters as the RF line fills out).

Agree fully. This is a great time to switch to full frame or simply upgrade due to so many people moving to mirrorless.   I recently sold my lightly used 100-400L II for probably a rediculously low amount in order to facilitate acquisition of the R 100-500L.  For me, the 100-400 was lightly used due to its limited reach.  The additional 25% on the long enough was enough of an incentive to prompt the switch.   Someone benefited fabulously due to my indulgence.

I think the best advice for those who do want to make the switch, but don’t have the immediate need for the new tech, should wait a little bit for the inevitable new lower tier ML bodies to come out. In Canon-land there’ll be R and RP replacements, and perhaps a Rebel-level R Series? There are definitely gaps now at the appx $1800, $1300, and $900 price points (R and RP notwithstanding). Canon’s RF lens release roadmap (existing and speculated) is certainly now aimed directly at the masses. The other manuf are advancing and growing their line-ups too of course.

The early adopters and Pros will always be paying the premium (ala R5 and R6), but I think the enthusiasts are really in for a treat too this next year .


Malachi42 wrote:

I'd focus more on the glass than the camera. Five, ten, fifteen years from now, they'll still be using the glass they buy today, assuming they buy quality glass, but they won't be using the camera they buy today.

That is certainly true in my case. I switched to Canon back in 2004, so I have a good collection of EF lenses. Today, I still use all that glass, but I rarely ever use any of the cameras I bought from back then (5D and 20D).

So, I'm going to go off the beaten path and suggest the RP. It's a perfectly capable still photographer's camera that can make use of quality, used EF glass, while opening the door to the RF line up.

Of course, if there are certain features that are absolute requirements, like 50 MP or 12 FPS, then obviously it's not the right camera. But, for anyone who can make due with it's perfectly good capabilities, it's a great gateway camera. The $1500 (R6) to $2400 (R5) you save, for an R-series camera you can actually put your hands on today, can go towards some good quality glass.

I think that this is excellent advice.

New innovations will appear in the R series first and in EF later if at all ( probably primarily or entirely in the 1DX series).  Thus, to get access to great and innovative lenses like the R 15-35L, R 70-200L, and R 100-500L, you need an R body.  If I were a birder or wildlife shooter, I'd really want the 100-500L rather than the 100-400, and that extra mm at the wide end of the 15-35 might keep you from needing to purchase an ultra-wide 14-24 lens.   I've always prefer an wide-angle zoom as my walkaround rather than a 24-70.   However, 16-35 wasn't wide enough, and 14-24 (or Tamron's 15-30) just weren't long enough.  I'm hoping the 15-35  is in the Godilocks zone.

So, in sum, I like Malachi's advice to focus on lenses.  If you are looking to upgrade--especially from APS-C to full frame--the innovation is in the R series.  However, if you are on a budget, and any purchase is a reach or a strain, then DSLR is the way to go.  Most of the world cannot afford $2000+ zooms and primes.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow