Thoughts to replace my RP with a R7.

[Swerky]

I am a hobbyist photographer. I own a Canon RP .

I have the following lenses

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

Canon RF 50MM f/1.8 STM

Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM with Canon adapter ef to rf.

I know the technical details about the models of canon rf mount cameras & lenses and for ef and ef-s lenses.

I am thinking to replace my RP that is the lowest end full frame rf camera

with a R7, that is the best aps-c RF mount. I know that all sites that compare cameras give better mark for image quality to the RP as a full frame than R7 .

But I find the aps-c have advantages with most important the budget needed for the lenses.

If I sell with the rp the 24-105 kit lens and the wide zoom lens 15-30

the 50mm will be a great portrait lens on R7 , as an 80mm lens with crop factor.

The 100-400 will be a much greater telephoto , as an 160-640mm .

With the 33megapixels, I will have also better digital zoom with crop.

The ef 100mm macro , with 160mm equivalent will be also better macro lens, giving greater distance from small objects.

For wide zoom the aps-c rf cameras have the much cheaper 10-18 is stm

For a power all around (and to do) zoom , the 18-150 in half price of full frame 24-240 .

A 500 euro rf 85mm f/2 is almost equivalent with the much more expensive 135mmfull frame with triple price.

For a pro f/2.8 I could buy a grey import ef-s 17.55 f/2.8 or a brand new rf-s sigma

for the 1/3 of a full frame rf lens with f/2.8 .

The af system of R7 also is more pro and could follow animals eyes and vehicles, while rp's don't

What do you think ?

Has anyone used both cameras and those lenses as I described ?

There are some instances where your actual lenses will be ‘improved’ with crop, like the telephoto 100-400.

With the R7, you will get the added benefit of lens IS added to body IBIS.

But in the end, it all depends on what your priorities are. If you really want the added telephoto and the more advanced autofocus of the R7, the switch is a no brainier. But if those aren’t really a priority, you have to weigh well the option of switching. I own an RP and an APS-C sensor camera in the Powershot G1X Mark III.

I still have the not to disdain benefit of full frame in low light, where I get cleaner images at high ISO.

Only if you can get close enough to your subject to fill the frame.
That FF low light advantage is given up if you need to crop 1.6x or use a 1.4x extender.

jj

Getting close enough isn’t my concern. I’m referring to the OP’s possible requirements.

 

[Swerky]

I am a hobbyist photographer. I own a Canon RP .

I have the following lenses

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

Canon RF 50MM f/1.8 STM

Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM with Canon adapter ef to rf.

I know the technical details about the models of canon rf mount cameras & lenses and for ef and ef-s lenses.

I am thinking to replace my RP that is the lowest end full frame rf camera

with a R7, that is the best aps-c RF mount. I know that all sites that compare cameras give better mark for image quality to the RP as a full frame than R7 .

But I find the aps-c have advantages with most important the budget needed for the lenses.

If I sell with the rp the 24-105 kit lens and the wide zoom lens 15-30

the 50mm will be a great portrait lens on R7 , as an 80mm lens with crop factor.

The 100-400 will be a much greater telephoto , as an 160-640mm .

With the 33megapixels, I will have also better digital zoom with crop.

The ef 100mm macro , with 160mm equivalent will be also better macro lens, giving greater distance from small objects.

For wide zoom the aps-c rf cameras have the much cheaper 10-18 is stm

For a power all around (and to do) zoom , the 18-150 in half price of full frame 24-240 .

A 500 euro rf 85mm f/2 is almost equivalent with the much more expensive 135mmfull frame with triple price.

For a pro f/2.8 I could buy a grey import ef-s 17.55 f/2.8 or a brand new rf-s sigma

for the 1/3 of a full frame rf lens with f/2.8 .

The af system of R7 also is more pro and could follow animals eyes and vehicles, while rp's don't

What do you think ?

Has anyone used both cameras and those lenses as I described ?

There are some instances where your actual lenses will be ‘improved’ with crop, like the telephoto 100-400.

With the R7, you will get the added benefit of lens IS added to body IBIS.

But in the end, it all depends on what your priorities are. If you really want the added telephoto and the more advanced autofocus of the R7, the switch is a no brainier. But if those aren’t really a priority, you have to weigh well the option of switching. I own an RP and an APS-C sensor camera in the Powershot G1X Mark III.

I still have the not to disdain benefit of full frame in low light, where I get cleaner images at high ISO.

Only if you can get close enough to your subject to fill the frame.
That FF low light advantage is given up if you need to crop 1.6x or use a 1.4x extender.

The FF low-light advantage is given up if you don't use a different lens (or at least a longer focal length with the same lens)!

I wasn’t referring to full frame advantage in conjunction with telephoto. Just the advantage of full frame as a larger sensor and better for low light shooting when comparable lenses are used.

 

[Sittatunga]

...

The FF low-light advantage is given up if you don't use a different lens (or at least a longer focal length with the same lens)!

I wasn’t referring to full frame advantage in conjunction with telephoto. Just the advantage of full frame as a larger sensor and better for low light shooting when comparable lenses are used.

That's where the equivalence can of worms comes in. There's no "advantage of full frame as a larger sensor and better for low light shooting when comparable lenses are used". But the ultimate limit on image quality is the number of photons recorded when making the image, and an f/2 lens on a full-frame sensor is comparable to an f/1.2 lens on an APS-C sensor for that, assuming the same field of view and no cropping. Or put the other way around, an f/3.5 lens on an APS-C sensor is comparable to an f/5.6 lens on a full-frame sensor.

 

[Swerky]

...

The FF low-light advantage is given up if you don't use a different lens (or at least a longer focal length with the same lens)!

I wasn’t referring to full frame advantage in conjunction with telephoto. Just the advantage of full frame as a larger sensor and better for low light shooting when comparable lenses are used.

That's where the equivalence can of worms comes in. There's no "advantage of full frame as a larger sensor and better for low light shooting when comparable lenses are used". But the ultimate limit on image quality is the number of photons recorded when making the image, and an f/2 lens on a full-frame sensor is comparable to an f/1.2 lens on an APS-C sensor for that, assuming the same field of view and no cropping. Or put the other way around, an f/3.5 lens on an APS-C sensor is comparable to an f/5.6 lens on a full-frame sensor.

That’s what I was meaning.

 

[Sittatunga]

...

The FF low-light advantage is given up if you don't use a different lens (or at least a longer focal length with the same lens)!

I wasn’t referring to full frame advantage in conjunction with telephoto. Just the advantage of full frame as a larger sensor and better for low light shooting when comparable lenses are used.

That's where the equivalence can of worms comes in. There's no "advantage of full frame as a larger sensor and better for low light shooting when comparable lenses are used". But the ultimate limit on image quality is the number of photons recorded when making the image, and an f/2 lens on a full-frame sensor is comparable to an f/1.2 lens on an APS-C sensor for that, assuming the same field of view and no cropping. Or put the other way around, an f/3.5 lens on an APS-C sensor is comparable to an f/5.6 lens on a full-frame sensor.

That’s what I was meaning.

I thought you were. I was just trying to make it extremely obvious.

 

[jjbinx]

I am a hobbyist photographer. I own a Canon RP .

I have the following lenses

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

Canon RF 50MM f/1.8 STM

Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM with Canon adapter ef to rf.

I know the technical details about the models of canon rf mount cameras & lenses and for ef and ef-s lenses.

I am thinking to replace my RP that is the lowest end full frame rf camera

with a R7, that is the best aps-c RF mount. I know that all sites that compare cameras give better mark for image quality to the RP as a full frame than R7 .

But I find the aps-c have advantages with most important the budget needed for the lenses.

If I sell with the rp the 24-105 kit lens and the wide zoom lens 15-30

the 50mm will be a great portrait lens on R7 , as an 80mm lens with crop factor.

The 100-400 will be a much greater telephoto , as an 160-640mm .

With the 33megapixels, I will have also better digital zoom with crop.

The ef 100mm macro , with 160mm equivalent will be also better macro lens, giving greater distance from small objects.

For wide zoom the aps-c rf cameras have the much cheaper 10-18 is stm

For a power all around (and to do) zoom , the 18-150 in half price of full frame 24-240 .

A 500 euro rf 85mm f/2 is almost equivalent with the much more expensive 135mmfull frame with triple price.

For a pro f/2.8 I could buy a grey import ef-s 17.55 f/2.8 or a brand new rf-s sigma

for the 1/3 of a full frame rf lens with f/2.8 .

The af system of R7 also is more pro and could follow animals eyes and vehicles, while rp's don't

What do you think ?

Has anyone used both cameras and those lenses as I described ?

There are some instances where your actual lenses will be ‘improved’ with crop, like the telephoto 100-400.

With the R7, you will get the added benefit of lens IS added to body IBIS.

But in the end, it all depends on what your priorities are. If you really want the added telephoto and the more advanced autofocus of the R7, the switch is a no brainier. But if those aren’t really a priority, you have to weigh well the option of switching. I own an RP and an APS-C sensor camera in the Powershot G1X Mark III.

Only if you can get close enough to your subject to fill the frame.
That FF low light advantage is given up if you need to crop 1.6x or use a 1.4x extender.

jj

Getting close enough isn’t my concern. I’m referring to the OP’s possible requirements.

Were you not referring to yourself when you wrote “I still have the not to disdain benefit of full frame in low light, where I get cleaner images at high ISO” ?

jj

 

[thunder storm]

You can better get an R6, it has both the advantage of the R7 (IBIS) and is full frame. The Mk2 version costs about $2000, ad the Mk1 is still available for $1500. The R6Mk2 is barely an upgrade over the Mk1, not worth the extra $500.

It’s a significant upgrade over the MkI. Lots of small improvements, and some big improvements. Easily worth an extra $500.

I think the value to money ratio of the R6mk1 becomes better when buying an occasion.

When once used to full frame, I never looked back. In 2012 I upgraded from 7D (predecessor of R7) to 6D, which I kept until 2021. Then I got the R6 (actually a 6DMk3) which was a real upgrade because of the mirrorless, better sensor, faster AF and IBIS.

 

[Swerky]

I am a hobbyist photographer. I own a Canon RP .

I have the following lenses

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

Canon RF 50MM f/1.8 STM

Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM with Canon adapter ef to rf.

I know the technical details about the models of canon rf mount cameras & lenses and for ef and ef-s lenses.

I am thinking to replace my RP that is the lowest end full frame rf camera

with a R7, that is the best aps-c RF mount. I know that all sites that compare cameras give better mark for image quality to the RP as a full frame than R7 .

But I find the aps-c have advantages with most important the budget needed for the lenses.

If I sell with the rp the 24-105 kit lens and the wide zoom lens 15-30

the 50mm will be a great portrait lens on R7 , as an 80mm lens with crop factor.

The 100-400 will be a much greater telephoto , as an 160-640mm .

With the 33megapixels, I will have also better digital zoom with crop.

The ef 100mm macro , with 160mm equivalent will be also better macro lens, giving greater distance from small objects.

For wide zoom the aps-c rf cameras have the much cheaper 10-18 is stm

For a power all around (and to do) zoom , the 18-150 in half price of full frame 24-240 .

A 500 euro rf 85mm f/2 is almost equivalent with the much more expensive 135mmfull frame with triple price.

For a pro f/2.8 I could buy a grey import ef-s 17.55 f/2.8 or a brand new rf-s sigma

for the 1/3 of a full frame rf lens with f/2.8 .

The af system of R7 also is more pro and could follow animals eyes and vehicles, while rp's don't

What do you think ?

Has anyone used both cameras and those lenses as I described ?

There are some instances where your actual lenses will be ‘improved’ with crop, like the telephoto 100-400.

With the R7, you will get the added benefit of lens IS added to body IBIS.

But in the end, it all depends on what your priorities are. If you really want the added telephoto and the more advanced autofocus of the R7, the switch is a no brainier. But if those aren’t really a priority, you have to weigh well the option of switching. I own an RP and an APS-C sensor camera in the Powershot G1X Mark III.

Only if you can get close enough to your subject to fill the frame.
That FF low light advantage is given up if you need to crop 1.6x or use a 1.4x extender.

jj

Getting close enough isn’t my concern. I’m referring to the OP’s possible requirements.

Were you not referring to yourself when you wrote “I still have the not to disdain benefit of full frame in low light, where I get cleaner images at high ISO” ?

jj

You wrote about the application of full frame in conjunction with telephoto. I was just talking about full frame. I said getting close isn’t my concern. But it may well be the OP’s concern.

 

[R2D2]

I am a hobbyist photographer. I own a Canon RP .

I have the following lenses

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

Canon RF 50MM f/1.8 STM

Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM with Canon adapter ef to rf.

I know the technical details about the models of canon rf mount cameras & lenses and for ef and ef-s lenses.

I am thinking to replace my RP that is the lowest end full frame rf camera

with a R7, that is the best aps-c RF mount. I know that all sites that compare cameras give better mark for image quality to the RP as a full frame than R7 .

But I find the aps-c have advantages with most important the budget needed for the lenses.

If I sell with the rp the 24-105 kit lens and the wide zoom lens 15-30

the 50mm will be a great portrait lens on R7 , as an 80mm lens with crop factor.

The 100-400 will be a much greater telephoto , as an 160-640mm .

With the 33megapixels, I will have also better digital zoom with crop.

The ef 100mm macro , with 160mm equivalent will be also better macro lens, giving greater distance from small objects.

For wide zoom the aps-c rf cameras have the much cheaper 10-18 is stm

For a power all around (and to do) zoom , the 18-150 in half price of full frame 24-240 .

A 500 euro rf 85mm f/2 is almost equivalent with the much more expensive 135mmfull frame with triple price.

For a pro f/2.8 I could buy a grey import ef-s 17.55 f/2.8

No...... that one is outdated. Great at f/5.6, but it's not fun to carry f/2.8 to shoot at f/5.6.

or a brand new rf-s sigma

1000 euro in my market

for the 1/3 of a full frame rf lens with f/2.8 .

The af system of R7 also is more pro and could follow animals eyes and vehicles, while rp's don't

What do you think ?

I think it's a bad idea. The R7 has a very high pixel density sensor, and your glass should be top notch to feed that detail hungry sensor. Digital croppability doesn't bring you anything if the glass can't keep up with pixel density.

You already own the full frame lenses, so selling it off will cause a financial loss.

You state you know al the technical details about aps-c vs crop, however, equivalent apertures aren't given much thought. There's no way the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm can do the same as a 135mm f/1.8 L. On a crop sensor you will also see fringing from the 85mm lens which is barely visible on a full frame sensor.

I would prefer the IQ of the RF 85mm f/2.0 on a full frame 24Mp sensor any day of the week over the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm on a 32Mp crop sensor. Yeah, I know, 50mm*1.6=80mm. But there's more to it than that.

Has anyone used both cameras and those lenses as I described ?

Christopher Frost tests several lenses on both full frame and aps-c. I suggest you should watch some reviews for the lenses you're planning to use on the R7 before buying into crop. The 100-400mm for instance, but the others as well. There's a reason full frame cameras are more expensive (although its MUCH more affordable than say 7 years ago), and that reason is better IQ.

I think you should upgrade to R8 or R6II.

+1 Given the choice I would go for FF also.

And then add the RF 1.4x for telephoto if needed.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[Eddie Rizk]

I am a hobbyist photographer. I own a Canon RP .

I have the following lenses

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

Canon RF 50MM f/1.8 STM

Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM with Canon adapter ef to rf.

I know the technical details about the models of canon rf mount cameras & lenses and for ef and ef-s lenses.

I am thinking to replace my RP that is the lowest end full frame rf camera

with a R7, that is the best aps-c RF mount. I know that all sites that compare cameras give better mark for image quality to the RP as a full frame than R7 .

But I find the aps-c have advantages with most important the budget needed for the lenses.

If I sell with the rp the 24-105 kit lens and the wide zoom lens 15-30

...

Has anyone used both cameras and those lenses as I described ?

I write as someone who hasn't used either camera, though I read a lot and have seriously considered the R7.

If you like the idea of the R7, and value the IBIS and other enhancements over the R10, I would go for it.

But I wouldn't sell the RP. Get the best of both worlds. Have two choices, mix and match your lenses and cameras to have the focal lengths you need on the day. I value that scenario. And I would keep the 15-30 - it'll be a light 24-50 on the R7, which is very handy.

If you need to sell, to help finance the purchase, you will need to look at which lenses you use least. I'd look first at the EF macro and adapter.

I beg to differ, my friend. That is, by far, the best lens that the OP has. If he shoots portraits, as he says, it’s a truly outstanding portrait lens.

It depends how much you would use them. You could have 15-30 on the RP, and (with the 24-105) 38-168 on the R7, a nice two-lens day-to-day set up that covers a lot.

 

[thunder storm]

I am a hobbyist photographer. I own a Canon RP .

I have the following lenses

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

Canon RF 50MM f/1.8 STM

Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM with Canon adapter ef to rf.

I know the technical details about the models of canon rf mount cameras & lenses and for ef and ef-s lenses.

I am thinking to replace my RP that is the lowest end full frame rf camera

with a R7, that is the best aps-c RF mount. I know that all sites that compare cameras give better mark for image quality to the RP as a full frame than R7 .

But I find the aps-c have advantages with most important the budget needed for the lenses.

If I sell with the rp the 24-105 kit lens and the wide zoom lens 15-30

...

Has anyone used both cameras and those lenses as I described ?

I write as someone who hasn't used either camera, though I read a lot and have seriously considered the R7.

If you like the idea of the R7, and value the IBIS and other enhancements over the R10, I would go for it.

But I wouldn't sell the RP. Get the best of both worlds. Have two choices, mix and match your lenses and cameras to have the focal lengths you need on the day. I value that scenario. And I would keep the 15-30 - it'll be a light 24-50 on the R7, which is very handy.

If you need to sell, to help finance the purchase, you will need to look at which lenses you use least. I'd look first at the EF macro and adapter.

I beg to differ, my friend. That is, by far, the best lens that the OP has. If he shoots portraits, as he says, it’s a truly outstanding portrait lens.

Makes sense.

It depends how much you would use them. You could have 15-30 on the RP, and (with the 24-105) 38-168 on the R7, a nice two-lens day-to-day set up that covers a lot.

 

[babis_greek]

I beg to differ, my friend. That is, by far, the best lens that the OP has. If he shoots portraits, as he says, it’s a truly outstanding portrait lens.

Do you mean that Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5 - 6.3 IS STM is my best lens and a good portrait lens ?

 

[LXI_Martin]

I beg to differ, my friend. That is, by far, the best lens that the OP has. If he shoots portraits, as he says, it’s a truly outstanding portrait lens.

Do you mean that Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5 - 6.3 IS STM is my best lens and a good portrait lens ?

No, what I gather is that they don't agree when I said that you might want to sell your EF100 macro. I did say that you may need to think about this if you need something to part exchange and you don't use it much. I agree, from what I have always read, that it is a very good lens. The best would be if you can buy without selling anything, of course.

 

[babis_greek]

I beg to differ, my friend. That is, by far, the best lens that the OP has. If he shoots portraits, as he says, it’s a truly outstanding portrait lens.

Do you mean that Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5 - 6.3 IS STM is my best lens and a good portrait lens ?

No, what I gather is that they don't agree when I said that you might want to sell your EF100 macro. I did say that you may need to think about this if you need something to part exchange and you don't use it much. I agree, from what I have always read, that it is a very good lens. The best would be if you can buy without selling anything, of course.

IF I replace the RP with a R7 , the rf 15-30 will be replaced with Canon RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM and the rf 24-105 will be replaced with the Canon RF-s 18-150mm IS STM that in not only equivalent , but much more, in fact it's equivalent of 24-240 from full frame lenses. And without financial loss I believe.

 

[MAC]

I beg to differ, my friend. That is, by far, the best lens that the OP has. If he shoots portraits, as he says, it’s a truly outstanding portrait lens.

Do you mean that Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5 - 6.3 IS STM is my best lens and a good portrait lens ?

No, what I gather is that they don't agree when I said that you might want to sell your EF100 macro. I did say that you may need to think about this if you need something to part exchange and you don't use it much. I agree, from what I have always read, that it is a very good lens. The best would be if you can buy without selling anything, of course.

IF I replace the RP with a R7 , the rf 15-30 will be replaced with Canon RF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM and the rf 24-105 will be replaced with the Canon RF-s 18-150mm IS STM that in not only equivalent , but much more, in fact it's equivalent of 24-240 from full frame lenses. And without financial loss I believe.

for macro, I like my 100L on my APSC better than my FF - but for portrait my 100L on FF rocks

I wouldn't buy the 50 f1.8 for portraits because of weak wide open

you already have the 100-400 that covers 240

FF has a lot more potential for low light and shallow dof and wide angle and less loca / artifacts - ie, better IQ