Canon choices within my budget

Am considering “graduating” from my ancient 30D to a full frame mirrorless. I have about $2,500 to spend. The dilemma is body vs. lens. Should I invest in the 24-105 L lens and use the RP body, or purchase the R body and go with the less expensive Canon 24-105 lens? Lots of trade offs to consider, I realize. I do travel shooting, so weight is somewhat a factor, as is not having to carry a bagfull of lenses. I have 3 lenses for my DSLR-C body I can use in a pinch, recognizing I won’t get full sensor coverage for the full frame body.

Either one with a 24-240 would be in your budget. 24-240 is an excellent lens.

jmschaller wrote:

Am considering “graduating” from my ancient 30D to a full frame mirrorless. I have about $2,500 to spend. The dilemma is body vs. lens. Should I invest in the 24-105 L lens and use the RP body, or purchase the R body and go with the less expensive Canon 24-105 lens? Lots of trade offs to consider, I realize. I do travel shooting, so weight is somewhat a factor, as is not having to carry a bagfull of lenses. I have 3 lenses for my DSLR-C body I can use in a pinch, recognizing I won’t get full sensor coverage for the full frame body.

I'd go for a used EOS R ($1100-1300) and pick some prime lenses (RF 35/1.8, RF 85/2, RF 50/1.8).... No point using APSC lenses with full frame

jmschaller wrote:

Am considering “graduating” from my ancient 30D to a full frame mirrorless. I have about $2,500 to spend. The dilemma is body vs. lens. Should I invest in the 24-105 L lens and use the RP body, or purchase the R body and go with the less expensive Canon 24-105 lens?

It may depend on what other lenses you use. The RP is a very compact body (more similar to the better EF-M series bodies) and ergonomically not great with larger/heavier zooms or tele lenses. Many people do it and learn to hold the lens primarily (instead of the camera), but not ideal.

Lots of trade offs to consider, I realize. I do travel shooting, so weight is somewhat a factor, as is not having to carry a bagfull of lenses.

Perhaps the suggested RF 24-240mm might be a decent option. I have never used one, but it would seem that as long as you apply lens corrections, either in-camera JPEG or in Canon's DPP (or similar) if shooting RAW, it can produce good results.

I have 3 lenses

What are they ?

for my DSLR-C body I can use in a pinch, recognizing I won’t get full sensor coverage for the full frame body.

Depends on the lenses. If they are Canon EF-S lenses then the camera will automatically go to crop mode, so you lose resolution (by a factor of 1.6x1.6 = 2.56 times) which may be more of an issue than the narrower FoV (ie. a 24mm lens produces a FF equivalent FoV of around 38mm) because the RP becomes a 10Mp camera.

I think that some third party APS-C lenses can be used without the automatic crop function applied but there can be severe vignetting.

If they are EF mount lenses then you shouldn't lose anything.

Colin

When you say "DSLR-C," you mean EF-S lenses for your 30D? They work in the sense that EOS R/RP will let you shoot photos with them, but between the mediocre quality of the lenses themselves and the 1.6x crop factor, the resulting image quality will be such that you won't feel like you're getting your money's worth out of your new camera.

jmschaller wrote:

Am considering “graduating” from my ancient 30D to a full frame mirrorless. I have about $2,500 to spend. The dilemma is body vs. lens. Should I invest in the 24-105 L lens and use the RP body, or purchase the R body and go with the less expensive Canon 24-105 lens? Lots of trade offs to consider, I realize. I do travel shooting, so weight is somewhat a factor, as is not having to carry a bagfull of lenses. I have 3 lenses for my DSLR-C body I can use in a pinch, recognizing I won’t get full sensor coverage for the full frame body.

Depends on what's on your thoughts as far as your upgrade path is concerned, but for me, lens is more important than the body. I'd go with RP and the 24-105L and buy one L glasses at a time. And when you have enough money later, you can upgrade the body. IMHO, this is a better upgrade path, since you will have collection of L glasses, should you decide to upgrade the body. Maybe wait until around Thanksgiving time to see what Canon offers. Just remember that Canon's 'Holiday/Black Friday' sale comes at an odd timing.

In that budget, I'd get an RP with an RF 24-240 for the daytime and an RF 35 F1.8 for the night.  At full retail, that's a little over your budget, but if any of it is used, refurbished, or on sale, you come in at or under budget.

If you want a more powerful body in the future, the RP is the one you will want to keep as a second camera, over the R, because of its size and weight.  It's a perfect travel rig with those two lenses.  Later, you can add the RF 16 F2.8, if you want an architectural lens, the RF 85 F2, if you want a portrait lens, and/or the RF 600 or 800 F11 or the RF 100-400, if you want a wildlife lens.

The less expensive RF lens catalogue is really good.  The 35 and the 85 both have 0.5-1 macro focusing, which is perfect for florals and food.  You really only need 1-1 for bugs, then you really need 2-1.

jmschaller wrote:

Am considering “graduating” from my ancient 30D to a full frame mirrorless. I have about $2,500 to spend. The dilemma is body vs. lens. Should I invest in the 24-105 L lens and use the RP body, or purchase the R body and go with the less expensive Canon 24-105 lens? Lots of trade offs to consider, I realize. I do travel shooting, so weight is somewhat a factor, as is not having to carry a bagfull of lenses. I have 3 lenses for my DSLR-C body I can use in a pinch, recognizing I won’t get full sensor coverage for the full frame body.

Welcome to the forum

well its a bit tricky choosing between the R and RP as both are a long way behind canon latest FF MILC and probably the R will be a long way behind any RP replacement

TBF i don't see any massive stand out feature for you to go with the R..they are both slow when it comes to FPS ..with AF tracking 5FPS for the R and 4FPS for the RP ..here you won't see an upgrade over your 30D

the R has a better EVF..may or may not be important to you

the R has better battery life than the RP ..both suck compared to your 30D so factor in a couple of batteries in your cost

the R has a sensor with a fair bit more dynamic range but the RP still has 1 stop of DR more than your 30D,,so if lack of DR was not a problem for you then it won't be with the RP.

their are other advantages with the R that may are may not be important like 1/4000 shutter speed vs 1/8000

the RP has very slightly better high ISO but probably not notice it in the real world

the RP is smaller and even more so with the STM kit lens so maybe a big plus for travel

Cost

looking at amazon USA (i am in the UK i see you can get a RP with the STM kit lens for $1300 an R with the STM lens is $2100......i just don't see the R any way whats so ever a $800 better camera when the RP replacement will most probably out speck it big time in a year or 2 for a lot less$$$ so its a no brainer for me unless you really really need another 1.5 stops of DR better EVF and battery life

24-104 F4L VS the 24-105 STM kit

well optically and IS and AF there is not much to choose between them watch this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySzMkQ0Sjik&ab_channel=GordonLaing

now the elephant in the room is the F7.1 bit

now lets put that into perspective 1st the STM lens is F4 at the wide end anyway and in the great scheme of things F4 is not that fast ..i guess you have a 18-55 kit lens on your 30D well the FF equivalent of your APS-c lens at 55mm, the RF kit lens has a 1 ish stop advantage with shallow DOF and 1 stop total light gathering on the FF sensor ..with the 24-105 stm when the focal length is set to the equiv to your 55mm APS-c its is at F6.3 so not as slow as you 1st think compared to APS-c kit lenses

Now the RP has a whopping 2 stops ISO advantage over the 30D so your low light capability is still upgraded almost 3 stops

as the RP and kit lens is $1200 below your budget it means you can supplement the kit lens with a fast prime or 2 ...or more..and still have a compact setup but way more versatile than the 24-105F4L alone giving you UWA, F1.8 and macro...for the way i would shoot RP+kit lens $1300 the new 16mm F2,8 $300 the 50mmF1.8 stm $200 and the RF 80mm is macro $600 total $2400 or the RF24-240 can be in the mix...or alone

look forwards to giving advice in 2036 with RP mk6 VS R mk6

I'd also recommend the RP or a used R with the 24-240. With the little finger extension, the RP is the most comfortable camera I've ever held, and the 24-240 is a very competent lens on the lower megapixel bodies (I love it on my R6).

Eddie Rizk wrote:

In that budget, I'd get an RP with an RF 24-240 for the daytime and an RF 35 F1.8 for the night. At full retail, that's a little over your budget, but if any of it is used, refurbished, or on sale, you come in at or under budget.

I agree. Those are the lenses I use most with my RP and I am very happy with the results.

David