Advice for an Hobbyist jumping to Full Frame

I think you’ll be very happy with the R8 or the R6 II. My opinion is buy R6 II and an adapter ring, and buy another lens later.

I hope it’s clear that adapting EF lenses works perfectly. You don’t need RF lenses at all. You can even use EF-S lenses with the adapter. The viewfinder will electronically crop 1.6x if you attach an EF-S lens. Of course; your resolution will be low, but it will work.

In my case, I bought R5 and kept using all of my EF lenses. I wouldn’t have bought the camera if my lenses wouldn’t work.

But, you also wrote that you want one lens for walking about, and a 24-70 f/4 or the 24-105 with the R8 might be the right choice.  I think the R8 packs a lot of punch for the price.  As an R5 owner, I’m pretty picky about cameras. I never cared for the R or RP, but I think the R8 is great for its price. Some people really like the IBIS and they take sharp photos at 1/4 or 1/8 second, which is impressive, but I don’t need that. Others like IBIS for shooting handheld video, which is worthwhile if that’s what you do.

Whichever you choose, you’ll be happy.

MasterWayne wrote:

So if you're really happy with your 7D and only want to try out full frame, I'd suggest to do something completely different:

I am happy with my 7D, but ...
- it is quite heavy
- since my 50mm prime break, I missed this range (eq 80mm)
- my prefered range is between 35-70mm (eq 24×36)
- I would like to benefit from new autofocus progress in the last 10 years

Buy a cheap used 6D DSLR. By this, you get a good full frame sensor (colors, ISO) and you can try out how your EF lenses behave on full frame (their effective focal length changes, so you see where you're "new" range is lacking). AF performance will probably be mostly enough. Sure, dynamic range is bad, so you'd need to do exposure brackets and stack for HDR landscape.

I see the advantage, but I allready know I'll miss the 35-70mm range only covered by the 16-35mm, 40mm pancake and the 70-200mm who is far from discreet and light.

After a while you'll know if your photography actually benefits from FF. Then you could resell the 6D with little to no loss and buy a (then cheaper) R/R8/6/5, as your "final" camera.

I allready know I want to go FF, starting with APS-C wasn't a "choice", 20 then 10 years ago hobbyist had quite no "reasonable" alternative.

I did it that way, coming from an 80D, then (used) 6D, then R5. I owned the 6D for roughly 9 months. When buying the R5 I exactly knew which lens I was missing on FF.

I think you have a great idea, do not get me wrong, it suited you very well, and was a good move. For me, the 35-70 missing range kills it.

I generaly prefer to have a jack-off-all-trade lens, with one or two specialized lenses aside than several purpose lens.

As an hobbyist with a family, having constantly to "stop" to change a lens is not ideal

Solinthor wrote:

MasterWayne wrote:

So if you're really happy with your 7D and only want to try out full frame, I'd suggest to do something completely different:

I am happy with my 7D, but ...
- it is quite heavy
- since my 50mm prime break, I missed this range (eq 80mm)
- my prefered range is between 35-70mm (eq 24×36)
- I would like to benefit from new autofocus progress in the last 10 years

Buy a cheap used 6D DSLR. By this, you get a good full frame sensor (colors, ISO) and you can try out how your EF lenses behave on full frame (their effective focal length changes, so you see where you're "new" range is lacking). AF performance will probably be mostly enough. Sure, dynamic range is bad, so you'd need to do exposure brackets and stack for HDR landscape.

I see the advantage, but I allready know I'll miss the 35-70mm range only covered by the 16-35mm, 40mm pancake and the 70-200mm who is far from discreet and light.

After a while you'll know if your photography actually benefits from FF. Then you could resell the 6D with little to no loss and buy a (then cheaper) R/R8/6/5, as your "final" camera.

I allready know I want to go FF, starting with APS-C wasn't a "choice", 20 then 10 years ago hobbyist had quite no "reasonable" alternative.

I did it that way, coming from an 80D, then (used) 6D, then R5. I owned the 6D for roughly 9 months. When buying the R5 I exactly knew which lens I was missing on FF.

I think you have a great idea, do not get me wrong, it suited you very well, and was a good move. For me, the 35-70 missing range kills it.

I generaly prefer to have a jack-off-all-trade lens, with one or two specialized lenses aside than several purpose lens.

As an hobbyist with a family, having constantly to "stop" to change a lens is not ideal

Then I think you already know quite well what you need and the consent of the thread (go with R8/6) seems the way to go

MAC wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Solinthor wrote:

Hi
I may keep the 7D and some EF-S lenses to give them to by son. But I understand your point.
But I do not know if these lenses have value now, all my EF-S lenses are quite cheap appart the 60mm macro.
Thanks

Remember if you go the 6D route that your EF-S lenses won't physically fit on it - but then they would only give 9Mpx on the R8. More importantly it won't have the focussing versatility of your 7D, never mind the vastly improved focussing of the R8. Save time and just go for the R8 if you really want FF.

ie, yep, get with the program

the RF 24-105L is amazing

the R8 is amazing with -6.5 EV focus aquisition, which is -3.2 EV @ F4 and with your best 24-105 ever made you can focus in full moonlight and with dxo PL6 and deep prime noise redux you can use your F4 L lens in low light up to iso 25, 600 and get useable results with the sharp f4L lens

also R8 gives you the latest FF IQ and in c-raw e-shutter gives you up to10 second bursts with up to ~200 shots with the amazing subject tracking

go for it - you have the money set aside - otherwise you'll continue to spin wheels with dated stuff

Yes, the more I read, the more I am convinced by the R8 + RF 24-105
That's what I generaly do, every 10 years, upgrade my set up to benefit from the past 10 years innovation

MasterWayne wrote:
Then I think you already know quite well what you need and the consent of the thread (go with R8/6) seems the way to go

Yes, thanks to the community and lot of response, I finally know.
Thanks a lot

Solinthor wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Solinthor wrote:

Hi
I may keep the 7D and some EF-S lenses to give them to by son. But I understand your point.
But I do not know if these lenses have value now, all my EF-S lenses are quite cheap appart the 60mm macro.
Thanks

Remember if you go the 6D route that your EF-S lenses won't physically fit on it - but then they would only give 9Mpx on the R8. More importantly it won't have the focussing versatility of your 7D, never mind the vastly improved focussing of the R8. Save time and just go for the R8 if you really want FF.

ie, yep, get with the program

the RF 24-105L is amazing

the R8 is amazing with -6.5 EV focus aquisition, which is -3.2 EV @ F4 and with your best 24-105 ever made you can focus in full moonlight and with dxo PL6 and deep prime noise redux you can use your F4 L lens in low light up to iso 25, 600 and get useable results with the sharp f4L lens

also R8 gives you the latest FF IQ and in c-raw e-shutter gives you up to10 second bursts with up to ~200 shots with the amazing subject tracking

go for it - you have the money set aside - otherwise you'll continue to spin wheels with dated stuff

Yes, the more I read, the more I am convinced by the R8 + RF 24-105
That's what I generaly do, every 10 years, upgrade my set up to benefit from the past 10 years innovation

a great plan indeed!

I would recommend waiting for the R8. You can use your EF and EF-S lenses with adapter.  The R8 has the guts of the R6 mk2 for a $1000 less.  I have the R7 now and probably going to sell/trade my 5D mk4 to get the R8 and go totally mirrorless.

Hi

What lens do you use currently for your portraits?

I used the EF 50mm f/1.4 on the 7D (eq 80mm), didn't replaced it when it broke, waiting for the new RF body announcement from Canon (was R50 / R8).

So in the meantime I use the 60mm and 16-35mm, rarely the 70-200 (too big)

The RF 24-105 will do the job (I am just an hobbyist) and I will definitively buy a prime RF lens for that next year.

If your gear list is up to date with what lenses you currently own then just buy the R8 and adapt your EF lenses. All the FF EF lenses you own will work perfectly fine adapted to the R8.

Yes, it is up-to-date, but with FF, I will miss the 40-70mm range (my prefered one)

Edit:
I will add another option to consider. If the EF FF lenses you have meet your needs then take the money for the RF 24-105mmL lens and put it toward buying the R6 Mark II instead of the R8. It is a very good camera and will serve you well for ten years, or more. Its body is more aligned with the 7D from a size perspective. Plus, you get IBIS, a better EVF, larger battery and better ergonomics.

Yes, I know, but I've always heard that it is better to invest in glass than body.

I have indeed the budget to buy the new R6 Mkii, but the price difference between R8 / R6Mkii is quite the one for the RF 24-105 f/4.

To be honest, as an Hobbyist, I am not sure to spend this amount of money again in Photography (I have other hobby), the RF 24-105 will surely be my only RF "L" lens.

Hi

I have the budget to buy the EOS R8 and the RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM.

This would be a great choice. But in another post you said you buy a camera once every ten years, and that makes me think it would be worth stretching to the R6 Mark II if you possibly can. It really is a lot more camera, for the reasons that others have already explained. The extra cost isn't that much spread over ten years!

Yes indeed, but also as an Hobbyist, is it not better to invest in glass than body?

The price difference between the R8 / R6Mkii is quite the one for the 24-105 f/4

Hi

Whichever you choose, you’ll be happy.

Yes, I am very excited to do the move to FF, I have choose the R8 for its best value, and I prefer to spend the difference between the R8 / R6Mkii in glass to get the RF 24-105 L f/4.

Thanks

natrpixvet wrote:

I would recommend waiting for the R8. You can use your EF and EF-S lenses with adapter. The R8 has the guts of the R6 mk2 for a $1000 less. I have the R7 now and probably going to sell/trade my 5D mk4 to get the R8 and go totally mirrorless.

Yes, I will go for the R8, I am going tuesday to a camera shoo to test the size of the RP (aka R8 in size) vs R6, but I anquite sure in the end I will end to pre-order the R8.

My 7D will go to my son who seems interested in photography.

Thanks

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Solinthor wrote:

Hi

I have the budget to buy the EOS R8 and the RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM.

This would be a great choice. But in another post you said you buy a camera once every ten years, and that makes me think it would be worth stretching to the R6 Mark II if you possibly can. It really is a lot more camera, for the reasons that others have already explained. The extra cost isn't that much spread over ten years!

Yes indeed, but also as an Hobbyist, is it not better to invest in glass than body?

This advice is often repeated, but I think that's in large part because it's easy to state and resonates with people. The reality is more complicated.

Things have moved on since the days when image quality depended on the film and the lens, with the body playing little more than a supporting role. Digital SLRs and now mirrorless system cameras are much more complex, and they have much more impact on the both the image quality and the success rate. The decision you make today between the R8 and the R6II will affect your photography for the whole of those ten years.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the choice of lens is any less important than it always was - just that the importance of the body is much greater than it once was.

+1 Saved me a lot of typing!

R2

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Solinthor wrote:

Hi

I have the budget to buy the EOS R8 and the RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM.

This would be a great choice. But in another post you said you buy a camera once every ten years, and that makes me think it would be worth stretching to the R6 Mark II if you possibly can. It really is a lot more camera, for the reasons that others have already explained. The extra cost isn't that much spread over ten years!

Yes indeed, but also as an Hobbyist, is it not better to invest in glass than body?

This advice is often repeated, but I think that's in large part because it's easy to state and resonates with people. The reality is more complicated.

Things have moved on since the days when image quality depended on the film and the lens, with the body playing little more than a supporting role. Digital SLRs and now mirrorless system cameras are much more complex, and they have much more impact on the both the image quality and the success rate. The decision you make today between the R8 and the R6II will affect your photography for the whole of those ten years.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the choice of lens is any less important than it always was - just that the importance of the body is much greater than it once was.

as a hobbyist though, where Canon put some thought into features that a hobbyist would want/need.

does the op really need to spend $1000 more for R6II features?

Does a hobbyist need dual card slots - my advice is no, just use well-known reliable cards.

Does the hobbyist need IBIS when they are planning to buy a great RF 24-105 F4 L with IS with the tight funds saved from not buying R6II?  Well, I've been using this lens with IS for three years and not once have I missed IBIS.

Does a hobbyist love smaller sized gear for travel -- yes indeed

Many cameras offer features that the hobbyist will never use

Glass still rules imo, don't short change and do get that L

Steve Balcombe wrote:

MAC wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Solinthor wrote:

Hi

I have the budget to buy the EOS R8 and the RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM.

This would be a great choice. But in another post you said you buy a camera once every ten years, and that makes me think it would be worth stretching to the R6 Mark II if you possibly can. It really is a lot more camera, for the reasons that others have already explained. The extra cost isn't that much spread over ten years!

Yes indeed, but also as an Hobbyist, is it not better to invest in glass than body?

This advice is often repeated, but I think that's in large part because it's easy to state and resonates with people. The reality is more complicated.

Things have moved on since the days when image quality depended on the film and the lens, with the body playing little more than a supporting role. Digital SLRs and now mirrorless system cameras are much more complex, and they have much more impact on the both the image quality and the success rate. The decision you make today between the R8 and the R6II will affect your photography for the whole of those ten years.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the choice of lens is any less important than it always was - just that the importance of the body is much greater than it once was.

as a hobbyist though, where Canon put some thought into features that a hobbyist would want/need.

does the op really need to spend $1000 more for R6II features?

Does a hobbyist need dual card slots - my advice is no, just use well-known reliable cards.

Does the hobbyist need IBIS when they are planning to buy a great RF 24-105 F4 L with IS with the tight funds saved from not buying R6II? Well, I've been using this lens with IS for three years and not once have I missed IBIS.

Does a hobbyist love smaller sized gear for travel -- yes indeed

Many cameras offer features that the hobbyist will never use

Glass still rules imo, don't short change and do get that L

Ah, no, you're misrepresenting what I said, especially the part I've marked in bold which you conveniently ignored.

I didn't attempt to tell the OP whether they needed IBIS or dual card slots or any other feature - only that they shouldn't let their judgement be clouded by the "Glass rules" mantra,

because the body is important too.

the body has always been important

but glass rules still stands - which means, find the glass you need first, then find the body that has the features you need

bodies come and go, but you don't want to be spilling money over time on the wrong glass

Hi

Things have moved on since the days when image quality depended on the film and the lens, with the body playing little more than a supporting role. Digital SLRs and now mirrorless system cameras are much more complex, and they have much more impact on the both the image quality and the success rate. The decision you make today between the R8 and the R6II will affect your photography for the whole of those ten years.

To be honest, I am not psychologically ready to spend so much in the R6Mkii ... I am not a professional, just an Hobbyist with "limited" ressources.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the choice of lens is any less important than it always was - just that the importance of the body is much greater than it once was.

I decided to take the R8, because of his size (with a little prime, it will be perfect for "light" day) and it is actually the most advanced R body at my reach.

I will also take the RF 24-105 f/4 because it will bring my favorite range (35-70) in Full Frame, has tropicalization, better build quality, same aperture from 24mm to 105mm and also because f/4 is quite enough for my needs. I will take fast prime if I need them.

I won't spend so much until several years, so it is also the right opportunity to invest in a RF "L" lens.

I bought 20 years ago the EF 70-200 f/4 L non-IS, but in the end, I used it quite just a few time, so I'll keep it.

My EF 16-35 f/4 will continue to be the best buddy for my R7 (for my son), and will begin a new journey for landscape photography on the R8

Thanks everyone for the advices.