• ANNOUNCEMENT

    Editing time now unlimited! For more information, read the thread in FAQs and Best Practices

DSLR to Mirrorless migration - talk to me about your experience

I so get this. The 1D bodies are so great, aren’t they? Big and bulky but so well designed, so good in the hand. I could carry the 1DIV all day without any discomfort. I went to a shop once to check out the Sony’s. I held one for 10 minutes and my hand hurt as one of the edges cut into it.

I did switch to mirrorless though. Got the R6 as soon as it came out. For one reason only: the new sensor tech. I now shoot with a R6II. But I very much understand not wanting to switch.
I really miss the responsiveness of the 1D bodies, but the R5 is so strong at everything else I'm sticking with it until I can justify an R3 (probably mk2, in a couple of years..).

Lens wise, I'm still mostly using my EF's on it and they work great, although I did buy an RF24-240 (and it's awesome as a travel lens!).

I'm used to using the e-viewfinder now, and I think I've forgotten how good the 1-series and 5 series DSLRs were to use. Being able to nail focus almost every time is just spectacular, and seeing realtime exposure and histogram info through the vf is brilliant.
 
I really miss the responsiveness of the 1D bodies, but the R5 is so strong at everything else I'm sticking with it until I can justify an R3 (probably mk2, in a couple of years..).

Lens wise, I'm still mostly using my EF's on it and they work great, although I did buy an RF24-240 (and it's awesome as a travel lens!).

I'm used to using the e-viewfinder now, and I think I've forgotten how good the 1-series and 5 series DSLRs were to use. Being able to nail focus almost every time is just spectacular, and seeing realtime exposure and histogram info through the vf is brilliant.
There may be an R1 at the Olympics this summer, just to muddy the situation further. 😀
 
I really miss the responsiveness of the 1D bodies, but the R5 is so strong at everything else I'm sticking with it until I can justify an R3 (probably mk2, in a couple of years..).
True, the 1D bodies were more responsive, quicker to lock on and had more firepower, at least more than the R6 and the R6II. I couldn't and can't justify a R3 either but I'm very happy with my R6II. I had a bumpy start with the R6, but can't imagine ever going back to a DSLR now.

Lens wise, I'm still mostly using my EF's on it and they work great, although I did buy an RF24-240 (and it's awesome as a travel lens!).

I'm used to using the e-viewfinder now, and I think I've forgotten how good the 1-series and 5 series DSLRs were to use. Being able to nail focus almost every time is just spectacular, and seeing realtime exposure and histogram info through the vf is brilliant.
I have been gradually switching to RF lenses. I shot birds with the EF 400/5.6L all those years but since buying the RF 100-500mm I haven't used it once. I do still use my old EF 300/4L though. That was my first L lens and I still use it in low light situations. It's old but still delivers.

Other than that, I have all cheapos: RF 16mm, 50mm, 800/11. It's nice not having to use an adapter. Next lens I want to get is the RF 100/2.8L Macro. Pricey but my old EF 100 Macro (non-L) doesn't work well with my R6II (nor did it with the R6 before that). The AF just pulses and won't lock on and I don't think it's the lens, because it still works perfectly well on the 1DIV.
 
True, the 1D bodies were more responsive, quicker to lock on and had more firepower, at least more than the R6 and the R6II. I couldn't and can't justify a R3 either but I'm very happy with my R6II. I had a bumpy start with the R6, but can't imagine ever going back to a DSLR now.


I have been gradually switching to RF lenses. I shot birds with the EF 400/5.6L all those years but since buying the RF 100-500mm I haven't used it once. I do still use my old EF 300/4L though. That was my first L lens and I still use it in low light situations. It's old but still delivers.

Other than that, I have all cheapos: RF 16mm, 50mm, 800/11. It's nice not having to use an adapter. Next lens I want to get is the RF 100/2.8L Macro. Pricey but my old EF 100 Macro (non-L) doesn't work well with my R6II (nor did it with the R6 before that). The AF just pulses and won't lock on and I don't think it's the lens, because it still works perfectly well on the 1DIV.
I told you once but this is the last time. Save your money pickup a used EF 100mm f2.8 L macro the focus with adapter is unreal. $500 or less vs $1,100 for a RF version.
 
I told you once but this is the last time. Save your money pickup a used EF 100mm f2.8 L macro the focus with adapter is unreal. $500 or less vs $1,100 for a RF version.
It doesn’t help Levina but I just saw an email in my inbox about the Canon refurb store having the RF 100L for $709.
 
I told you once but this is the last time. Save your money pickup a used EF 100mm f2.8 L macro the focus with adapter is unreal. $500 or less vs $1,100 for a RF version.
Thanks! It's strange. I always bought my 1D bodies used. But never lenses. Somehow I always think used lenses are fishy. That something must be wrong with them and that's why the previous owner got rid of them. Nonsense, right?
 
I have yet to like mirrorless. And it has nothing to do with the image quality. I just don’t like the small weak bodies. I will admit, I haven’t tried a Canon mirrorless. My equipment history includes Digital Rebel, 20D,40D,5D,5D3,1D2,1Ds2,1D3,1DIV. So I have canon experience. This past year I made the switch to the Sony A7IV and blah. Sold that gear and came back to Canon and with a 1DxII at that LOL. I just love OVF, I love the battery life of the 1D bodies, The grip, the build, weather sealing. Maybe I’ll pick up a used R3 in a few years, when used prices drop below 1500 LOL.

Have you actually tried a Canon mirrorless body? I have tried the Rp - and was very impressed by the IQ and focusing and the general ergonomics - but like you prefer a sturdier body.

So I bought a R5 last Feb/March and that solved the problem of the sturdiness - took it to Morocco on an offroad trip and took 7500 shots in 3weeks. And later last year bought a R3 to replace my 1Dx3 - and love that body too - feels the same as the 1 Series except being a little lighter.
 
Have you actually tried a Canon mirrorless body? I have tried the Rp - and was very impressed by the IQ and focusing and the general ergonomics - but like you prefer a sturdier body.

So I bought a R5 last Feb/March and that solved the problem of the sturdiness - took it to Morocco on an offroad trip and took 7500 shots in 3weeks. And later last year bought a R3 to replace my 1Dx3 - and love that body too - feels the same as the 1 Series except being a little lighter.

No, I have not. I think I'm going to give my 1Dx2 a go for another year or 2 and then find me a used R3. This is now a hobby for me as I no longer do sports or weddings so I can afford to wait a bit because I've realized the larger bodies to me are more comfortable for me to shoot than the smaller RP, A7's, etc.
 
No, I have not. I think I'm going to give my 1Dx2 a go for another year or 2 and then find me a used R3. This is now a hobby for me as I no longer do sports or weddings so I can afford to wait a bit because I've realized the larger bodies to me are more comfortable for me to shoot than the smaller RP, A7's, etc.
I can understand and relate. For me, the 5D series (without grip) is the ideal size - fits perfectly in the hand and balances out larger lenses nicely.

The R5/R6 bodies are a bit too small for me. Using them for extended periods results in a very sore right pinky finger as that finger has nowhere to go but under the battery compartment so it ends up holding a significant portion of the weight. The R3 is overkill and I'm sure the R5mkII will be the same form factor as the R5. I suppose I could get a grip for them, but that defeats one of my major goals - going lighter.
 
Some lenses like the RF 24-70mm f2.8 LIS are so similar in their results that they can be considered equal to the EF 24-70 II L. The clear RF advantage is a slightly closer MFD and the inclusion of the IS unit. However, the AF speed and accuracy and their image quality are nearly identical, as are their size.
Funny you should write this because I've been seriously looking at 24-70s for a while now. I was waiting for the RF to reappear for $13xx on the refurb store but it's always sold out no matter the price. But... I see the EF on refurb for $1199, available today. Slightly smaller, slightly longer with the adapter, no IS. Given the choice I would go RF, but I also want to shoot with it at some point this spring and I know there's absolutely nothing wrong with the EF.
 
Funny you should write this because I've been seriously looking at 24-70s for a while now. I was waiting for the RF to reappear for $13xx on the refurb store but it's always sold out no matter the price. But... I see the EF on refurb for $1199, available today. Slightly smaller, slightly longer with the adapter, no IS. Given the choice I would go RF, but I also want to shoot with it at some point this spring and I know there's absolutely nothing wrong with the EF.
That is a difficult choice between the RF and the EF-II at those prices. I have the latter and I love it (previously had the original version which I did not like). But I do wish it had IS.

But, having the EF version allows me to use drop-in filters with the adapter with the added flexibility to use with my 5DmkIV.
 
For me, I don't think IS is really that important. For one, I seldom have shutter speeds below 1/800, and I also have IBIS. However... RF lenses support Panning Assist. Which the EF might also; Canon is notoriously bad about accurately listing which lenses actually work with which features. For instance, the first lens featured in -> this article <- about Panning Assist is the EF200/2 which is not -> listed as supported. <- I should try my existing lenses and see if I can tell if they work with PA.
 
Moderate weight lifting is good. Handling weight for hours isn't.

Birding with huge lenses I have seen in Canada, was short trips from parking lots to the shore line and rig was on the monopod.

While still in Canada, I went every summer for hiking on rocky part of Niagara Escarpment.
Very crowded part in Summer due to lack of public access land.
I would always remember how I have seen tired, older photogs with FF, big lenses gear.
Just by the head of the trail where real scenery starts. They only needed another three hundreds meters for hike.
But gear was too heavy.

And I remember how older Canadian photogs like Fred Herzog and George Zimbel went light, crop mirrorless at their late age.
I carried Bigma at Disney and had everything else I owned at the time in a Tamrac backpack on my back. That was a chore. Eventually I put the backpack in my sister's stroller and carried my nephew because he was lighter. 😀

I was in the Boy Scouts as a kid and took "always prepared" way too seriously.
 
I carried Bigma at Disney and had everything else I owned at the time in a Tamrac backpack on my back. That was a chore. Eventually I put the backpack in my sister's stroller and carried my nephew because he was lighter. 😀

I was in the Boy Scouts as a kid and took "always prepared" way too seriously.

Wow that is quite a chore. It wasn´t until recently that I even took a camera to Disneyland. The two times I have, it´s been with just one kid who was old enough to carry their own backpack and not need baby supplies. Even then, I´ve only taken an R6 + 24-105 STM which left room in my own small backpack for an extra layer, power bank, etc.
 
Funny you should write this because I've been seriously looking at 24-70s for a while now. I was waiting for the RF to reappear for $13xx on the refurb store but it's always sold out no matter the price. But... I see the EF on refurb for $1199, available today. Slightly smaller, slightly longer with the adapter, no IS. Given the choice I would go RF, but I also want to shoot with it at some point this spring and I know there's absolutely nothing wrong with the EF.
Yes I went EF too. I picked up a new EF 24-70/f2.8 L II for an amazing deal and it's an excellent lens. It's a seriously sharp lens for sure.
Depending on which camera body you are using is wether the RF's IS unit is a moot point or not. My R8 doesn't have IBIS but my R6II does.
So I have a camera without IS and one with IS.
 
Back
Top Bottom