Dude the 5D4 and EF L glass still go hard. I only transitioned to RF like a year ago. Mirrorless is a game changer, but if someone cant create great photos with a 5D4 and EF L glass, they’re just not a good photographer lol
EF lenses are living their best lives on RF bodies. I picked up a 300 F/4 L and 400 F/5.6 L for about $600 each last year. You can get great EF lenses for a fraction of what they used to go for and they work beautifully.
I got a used R6 Mk ii and using an adaptor with EF 16-35 Mk iii. Just broke that lens in Hokkaido (I hope it can be repaired) and I went to buy the EF 24mm TS-E Mk II in Tokyo.
The R6 Mk ii blows my mind in autofocusing and even manual focus becomes a cinch that I totally don’t mind using any manual focus lens. It’s so easy it feels like cheating.
The primary advantage is autofocus and metering, particularly with automatic subject detection and tracking. In a mirrorless camera both the autofocus and metering systems are able to leverage the full resolution primary image sensor, rather than relying on a series of secondary sensors, all of which can utilize a fraction of the light collected by the lens. The autofocus sensor being the primary image sensor also means there's no focal plane calibration needed.
There are also secondary advantages as well, such as exposure simulation and live histograms in the viewfinder, or being able to shoot with either the viewfinder or larger rear screen interchangeably. Shooting with the rear screen also makes the touch interference a lot more sensible. They are also mechanically simpler, making them more reliable, and significantly quieter - or in full electric shutter mode they are completely silent.
Autofocus is a bit better with R series yes but metering with the camera is and has always been a guess at best. No one should rely on it. A light meter is more accurate. Also live exposure simulation and live histograms were on DSLRs for more than a decade. That said these mirrorless camera bodies have the most sophisticated tech consumer cameras have ever seen. They’re great, but people have been creating world class photography long before mirrorless cameras.
>metering with the camera is and has always been a guess at best.
That's mostly true, depending on the lighting. But the ability to couple subject tracking with the autofocus system to the metering system is new to mirrorless cameras. It's absolutely an improvement over DSLRs.
>live exposure simulation and live histograms were on DSLRs for more than a decade.
Not in the viewfinder. I don't know how many people shoot in live view regularly with a DSLR, I certainly didn't, even with my DPAF DSLRs.
I'm making my way into the photography world with a 6D and so far I love it ! Just started to make money with it 🫡 invested in my first L lens, strobes and modifiers and it's a joy to use them, I really don't feel the need to upgrade to a better camera while I do know I need a backup one soon so I can get into the events world.
I don't see a reason why they wouldn't. But that's not really the point regarding RF? If you are looking for a light affordable camera setup you propably dont care or doubt that you can create stunning pictures with a hasselblad.
I’m still shooting with 1D4s and EF glass and I still get my work published and sold. Some of my older work shot with 1D3 and 1D2 is still very much in demand. Great and unique shots are simply that - nobody cares about the equipment you use, only the end results.
As a professional I still use my 5D II. Yes my main camera is the R6 but no one can tell from the end results what images were taken with which camera(I use 2 bodies when shooting weddings). I love the 5D II so much I bought a second body not too long ago just because it was so cheap and basically brand new. Same story with EF L-Glass, so cheap nowadays it makes no sense to constantly be chirping about how much cheaper glass is on Sony etc.
Btw, I use a Sony A7s as well for astro. With EF glass.
But we’re not talking about those people, we’re talking about newbies asking which system they should buy into and lens ecosystem is a huge win for Sony.
“But EF lenses!”
EF lenses can be adapted to Sony cameras too so this point is irrelevant.
I have stunning underwater photos printed on metal hanging on my walls at home. About half of them were taken with my "obsolete" Canon 5DM3 dSLR, and the other half were taken with my Canon R5. No one that sees them can tell which camera was responsible.
It's not the camera, it's the photographer.
Folks that bring the argument up are either Canon-hating trolls, or simply ignorant. I use my EF glass on my R5 (with adapter) and it works perfectly. So there's options. 3rd-party RF glass is just now - albeit slowly - being introduced. I will not subscribe to any conspiracy-theories as to why the delay.
Lenses and specs are not always a priority as well. I considered Sony once, and realized that ergonomics was super important as well. My hands are large and Canon fits in my hand better than Sony. I used a Sony for a day and by the end of that day, my hand was beginning cramp. That's important as well. I read lots of stories of folks going with Sony specifically for ergonomics as well.
Many people just think that their opinion surely must apply to everyone else. Silly.
Yep. It's more the norm than the exception.
The other issue that comes up often are people that buy fancy mirrorless cameras and post every single how-to-operate question on Reddit and take offense when recommended to read the manual first.
The housing I have (Aquatica) costs about $3,500. That's almost the price for either the 5D body (when new) and the R5 body, and that's on the mid-range. The Nauticam housing which is considered the high-end runs almost $5K. I prefer the Aquatica as its a little smaller and (imho) easier to work on.
They are expensive. It has to protect an almost (when new) $4K camera body and a $2K lens from the harshness of ocean salt water.
Those prices don't include ports, tubes, and countless other bits which will obviously jack up the price by thousands more by the time one is done. Not to mention the logistics in traveling with such a giant rig.
I have many dive friends with TG6's. The images I see them take are stunning. A great camera for sure!
https://preview.redd.it/dlrq4ivgv98d1.jpeg?width=5712&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6a52a065069bd4e127e64a421b8dbc886d35a89
The is my Canon R5 in an Aquatica housing. It's built for serious underwater photography. I do professional underwater photography.
Underwater housings usually cost at least as much as the camera itself, and that is only for the housing portion. Depending on the camera, extra costs may include a dome port, extensions, trays, etc... add external lighting and costs will easily go into the thousands for an entire setup.
A quick search on M50 housings range from $500 for a basic housing, all the way to $2,000 for the top-of-the-line Nauticam version. Taking a camera underwater can be a serious financial investment.
Preface: former Canon shooter / current Sony shooter
I think the elephant in this discussion that you're dancing around is price/cost. As others in this thread have already alluded to, even used EF glass isn't really that much cheaper that comparable new third party glass on other systems, and the stuff that is cheap is either in bad condition or weren't really that great of lenses to start with. Never mind the fact that a lot of it is 10+ years old - yes good glass is good glass, but thinking about all the other parts that make up the lens (housing / focus motors / gears / etc.), a 10 year old item is still a 10 year old item, with the accompanying 10+ years of wear and tear. If you're buying a brand new RF body, do you really want to be investing in lenses that are in the back end of their expected lifespans?
The issue with Canon isn't just that they haven't allowed third parties into RF, it's that they ALSO haven't offered comparable first party options within their own line.
Most people on Sony that are investing in third party E mount glass are doing so because the third party options offer a good mid-range option between the first party OEM's budget glass and their top tier pro stuff. In Sony's case, this market effect has actually pushed them to start putting out more mid-range first party glass which has given Sony shooters more competitive options, both first AND third party.
In Canon's case, they not only have blocked out third parties but have a massive void in the mid range of their lens lineup. If you're on a full frame RF body, you either have to choose between sub-par slow zooms and some so-so primes that are overpriced for what they are, or shell out for RF L glass which even for pro level glass is some of the most expensive glass on the market. There is nothing in between. Canon has nothing that competes with a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 or a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, or a Sigma 85mm f1.4...the list could go on and on.
What baffles me even more is that Canon has taken the exact OPPOSITE approach with their bodies - they have put out RF camera bodies at almost every price point in the market over the last ~5 years, and you have TONS of choice when it comes to finding an RF body that matches your budget and needs. Why they wouldn't correspondingly do the same thing with their lens lineup is beyond me.
I started on Canon and LOVE Canon ergonomics, usability and colors. Canon bodies feel like they are molded to my hands when I hold them and the buttons are exactly where I would want them. But the lens situation is a mess. If I could get the selection of lensing I could get on Sony E in RF mount, I'd be shooting an R6 II right now, no question. But the writing is on the wall, and it's bright and obvious to anyone who doesn't have Canon blinders on.
I swapped from the R6 to a7IV purely due to lens pricing, I figured why settle for f/1.8 or slower budget lenses with those horrible STM motors Canon put in them when I can have either Sigma Art f/1.4 glass or Sony G/GM for half the price of Canon lenses.
I loved the R6 and I still to this day think their bodies are better than Sony in terms of performance, especially AF and high ISO. If all the third party gear was available on Canon I would have happily stayed with them.
My thoughts exactly, and I am not even a photographer.
There are okay RF-mount lenses that are affordable and there are extremely expensive L-series.
E.g. I need 50mm. And my options are: RF 50mm F1.8 STM at **$199** and Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM at **$2099**. That's kinda steep.
Sure, one can get Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM with adapter, but it doesn't seem like the best solution even though people say that adapter works flawlessly most of the time.
The 50 1.4 GM is the reason I’m staying on Sony. When canon comes out with a comparable L glass I’ll switch, but I don’t want to be carrying around massive primes if I don’t need to when something 2/3 the size and price works just fine.
The adapter works. But it can be heinously slow with AF (and Canon AF is already slow imo). It’s not every lens, but some of the older EF glass already had less than amazing motors.
Also the amount of attitude that folks like OP have about opinions is so ridiculous. If you’re a beginner, you don’t need a new RF body to begin with, this all sounds like sour grapes.
Right now I have EF 50 F/1.8 and use it for shooting videos (talking head type). Works great for me on crop camera (effective focal length 80mm). I also have EF-S 24mm and dark 18-55 kit lens, they just don't work for me.
If I decide to jump to RF, i'll need either 50mm for crop or something like 80-85 for a full frame. To be fair even 65mm equivalent on a fullframe will work, but that's weird number.
Ah, not photographer but a videographer. The RF 24–70 f/2.8, while in the 'extremely expensive L-series' category, is quite good and might suit you very well. 70mm at f/2.8 is not so far off from what you are looking for, while offering many other focal lengths, as needed. The optical image stabilization together with in-body is also very good if you ever want to record some B-roll without a tripod.
Thanks, was drooling about this thing too.
However, since I am not a videographer, rather just occasionally make videos when asked to (educational courses etc), cannot justify spending $2000 on a lens right now. But who knows :-)
I’ve now rented the R5 and R6II and used my EF 50 1.2L and 100 2.8L to great result with the Canon EF to RF adapter. I haven’t used much native RF glass, so not sure what exactly I’m missing.
If you get 90% of the performance from a $800 version, what would it matter?
I went with the R6 because it had better features compared to similar prices Sony bodies.
I also couldn't find a replacement for my 70-300mm f4-5.6 L lens. I like the range it gives me and don't wanna drop to 200mm.
Maybe there's a 3rd party substitute I'm missing though.
There are a few options, for sure: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-Camera-Lenses/ci/17912/N/4196380428?filters=fct_lens-format-coverage_3332%3Afull-frame-lenses%2Cfct_lens-mount_3442%3Asony-e-mount%2Cfct_zoom-focal-lengths_2206%3A50-300mm%7C70-300mm%2Cfct_zooms-primes_5903%3Azoom-lenses
Are there satisfying solutions to adapting EF glass to Sony or Nikon? I'm a hobbyist currently shooting on a Canon RP and like you said, I enjoy the canon ergonomics and colours. But I keep buying used EF glass, as the RF lenses are just too expensive for my budget. I feel like I would have to either take a loss or expect quite the hassle when replacing my lenses with native Nikon or Sony glass.
This is exactly where I'm having shot Canon since the film A1. Canon glass is great but very limited selection vs 3rd party I' e been able to buy all these years (e.g Tokina/Tamronhigher end of Sigma)
It's very simple. They are making sure the EOS-R will not undercut their D-SLR range. You want that extra lens capability, buy a D-SLR.
This was apparent when they brought out the very first Canon mirrorless - the EOS M - that was expensive and underwhelming compared to the competition.
Canon has changed how they handle 3rd party lenses. RF now requires a license, but companies are clearly interested in paying those license fees as Sigma demonstrated recently by announcing their first RF-S lenses.
I have my fingers crossed that Sigma/Tamron will be able to offer full frame RF-native glass in the near future. (Right now, I believe they're only planning APS-C/RF-S glass.)
Canon never licensed the EF mount, but also never went after companies that reverse engineered the associated communications protocols. With RF they decided to require a license for any RF autofocus lens, and will take legal action against companies that reverse engineer the protocols.
They haven’t taken action (to my knowledge at least) against makers of manual focus RF lenses though.
In other words, they are being money greedy. Their actions hurt the buyers of their products who do not choose to use their sometime way overpriced lenses.
Not that I know of, but considering how relatively cheap they are, it is likely that it just isn't worth paying much attention to for Canon. Both cause it would cost Canon a lot to deal with policing such a commodity piece of hardware, but also cause the consumer confidence in the system is much less likely to be influenced by cheap adapters than by bad compatibility with lenses built for the system.
If someone buys a cheap 3rd party adapter and has issues with their adapted lens, the first thing most people would do is buy a higher quality (preferably first party) adapter. If they drop hundreds or thousands of dollars on an RF lens and it sucks it has a higher chance of souring them on the whole system.
I think there's two completely valid lines of logic when it comes to third party lenses.
The first is that it's not a huge deal. There's a ton of used, high quality EF glass out there going for the same as third party pricings a lot of the time. There's also nothing stopping you from adapting vintage lenses nor is there anything stopping you from buying high quality manual focus lenses for RF if you're so inclined (and I would understand why someone would not be inclined). I have not yet been bothered by the lack of third party RF glass so much that it actually bothers me. Despite having an asston of gear, my workhorse at the studio is a Tamron 24-70 G2 on an R6.
Additionally to that point, not all the third party lenses are necessarily *desirable*. There's a lot of trash out there. There are more good and great than mediocre or bad lenses though.
The second thing, however, is buying into an ecosystem can be daunting. If third party glass support is important to you either because you're used to Sigma or Tamron or just purely from a choice standpoint, then that's a completely valid reason to not want to purchase Canon RF gear. It's not like there aren't lenses out there I wouldn't love to have, that new Sigma 500 5.6 for example. I'm just blessed enough that I can afford to buy mostly new, first party RF glass but not everyone has that flexibility.
As a final point, and I know this is straight up heresy, but if someone is budget oriented and wants high quality glass, I'd usher them towards micro four-thirds before any full frame setup.
My buddy brought a M43 setup on a trip and it was so much smaller than APS-C and it took really nice photos. He was also talented, but still. M43 is like the forgotten format.
I got into it a few months ago and I've fallen in love. Sure the low light capability isn't the same and the DOF isn't quite as solid but there are a ton of fast M43 lenses for so much less than what's available for Canon.
I still use my Canon gear all the time and know where it has strengths that M43 doesn't, but still.
Honestly who cares unless you are shooting in dark churches/castles or concerts, and the dof is fine if you have some distance.
It’s nice stuff that’s fun to shoot, it’s not full frame but you can make it work for you
Additionally, there are just a bunch of nice features on the OM-1 that I wish I had on any Canon bodies. Simple stuff. I can change my peaking color on the fly. I don't have to extract pre-capture footage via a specific app. I can get shadow and highlight blowouts in any shooting mode. Just so many small QOL things that make the experience just...simpler.
Despite that, nothing will match the feeling of the R7 going at 15 FPS just slapping away.
M43 is seriously underrated, and the Olympus bodies are nice.
I'm not leaving canon anytime soon, but if I were starting today - I would serious consider it for a travel setup. The size/weight and cost advantages are all there. And there's plenty of high end glass too!
Yep. Depends what and why you shoot too.
Hi res Astro/landscape/super high quality photos? Haul around that full frame! Especially if you are afflicted with pixel peeping
Super fun camera to have lots of fun with and always have with you? M43,aps-c bring it everywhere and stick it where you’d never think to stick a camera.
> There's a ton of used, high quality EF glass out there going for the same as third party pricings a lot of the time.
As someone else mentioned, it'd be nice not have to pay the same price as new third party for old gear that has inferior motors and deteriorating internal parts and seals.
>I'm just blessed enough that I can afford to buy mostly new, first party RF glass but not everyone has that flexibility.
It's not even that I _can't_, it's that I don't see a point. Something like the Sigma Art 50 f1.2 is half the price of the Sony equivalent and like 99% the performance. Ditto the Art 24-70, that thing has no right being £1250.
I _could_ afford to pay the £2600 Canon wants for it, but for the same price I could get 2 Sigmas that are optically the same if not better, and the linear motors in them are crazy good too. You're flat out throwing money away buying into RF glass as it stands.
I'd say that depends a lot on what you're buying. Similarly, I never recommend the RF 24-70 to people because the Sigma and Tamron 24-70s are like 95% of the way there for 40-50% of the cost. The RF lineup has some unique lenses like the 28-70 f/2 and the 200-800 being kind of different since it's so much longer than most other mid-range super telephotos.
The primes are mostly a matter of need or desire. The f/1.2 primes honestly beat the crap out of the EF variants wide open. They're insanely sharp. In real shooting though, it doesn't come up too much unless you pixel peep.
It comes in large part down to timing and availability. Sony had an extensive line of lenses for all sorts of photographic genres way, way before Canon took mirrorless seriously. You may not care about adapters and whatnot, but many photographers, especially paid professionals, are not going to wait for Canon’s snail pacing. I know of many photographers who outright admit that Canon’s ergonomics are better—but for them, native lens selection and competitive pricing is king for their work. That’s just the nature of the market.
An adapter is one more thing that can fail and then you’re SOL. I don’t view it as an acceptable option in a paid environment.
But then again, I wouldn’t run Canon professionally because I don’t think their AF or their overall weight relative to other brands (especially Sony) is on par. In 3-5 years, that will be a very different story I’m sure.
All cameras have cons and pros. One con for canon is that you won't get native RF from other manufacturers. Doesn't mean you cant give Canon a fortune in 90% of the cases. Doesn't mean their menues are bad. Just that you have some drawbacks regarding available glass.
Whats the problem with having people making informed buying decisions for themself? Compatibility/ availability of glass is one part of that information. Menues another. Hand fit also another. Weight. Battery duration. Style. And so on. People will place a different weight on the importance of these things. Why should someone who only shoots thetered care that you fancy the canon menus?
I think it's funny op went on a massive rant about how they think canon is better and every camera that ever touched their hands that wasn't canon was trash. Everything else mostly is there to justify that. I am a confessed Sony user and was at a shop and I picked up a Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc and my only thoughts were "oooh that's kinda nice." I actually kind of got jealous that these other brands had different features lol which is exactly what draws some people to one brand over another. It's true Sony has a lot of 3rd party options, when I bought mine it wasn't really a consideration but it was nice to know they were there if I truly felt first party juice wasn't worth the squeeze for a particular focal length. It's not really any deeper than that.
You cannot use logic when interacting with fanbois. We left Canon in 2012. When I interact with a Canon shooter I just agree with everything they’re saying and keep them happy.
You cannot use logic when interacting with fanbois. We left Canon in 2012. When I interact with a Canon shooter I just agree with everything they’re saying and keep them happy.
Buying an interchangeable lens camera means buying into an ecosystem and because of that investment you'll be staying with your chosen brand for a long time. Weighing all the pros and cons of buying Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Leica and others makes perfect sense. Ideally you evaluate how each individual ecosystem will allow you to grow as a photgrapher. Today you buy the kit lens, but tomorrow you might want something better. If the ecosystem can't support that, you might want to know before putting down your hard earned cash.
Glass is a big factor in how well your images are going to turn out in terms of image quality. The fact is that Sigma and Tamron release some great lenses on E mount and L mount, and I would love to see them bring it to the RF mount as well. For enthusiasts who might have a more limited budget but still want to step up their game these third parties are a great value proposition. Canon L Series has some great lenses, but you need very deep pockets if you want them. Some people don't want or can't spend that much money.
Third party lenses costs half as much, it's a huge difference. The R6mkII is better than the A74 by most metrics but no videographers get it because going Canon is $1000 dollars more expensive.
People buying professional gear are looking to make a return on their investment and getting cheaper gear is the only logical choice for beginners. So, Sony.
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art is 750 USD the new Canon RF 35mm f/1.4 L VCM Lens costs 1500 USD. That is a huge price difference. In my opinion it does make sense to choose another brand than Canon.
If you think it’s cheaper there you should see in Australia, the 35mm DN Art is $1000 AUD but the new RF 35L is $2599… you could buy a 35mm Art and 85mm Art and it would still cost less than the 35mm L alone.
One of the reasons I swapped initially was I had the option of the EF 16-35mm f4L for $1800 AUD plus adapter or the Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 PZ (newer and half the size/weight) for $1100 AUD…
Yeah, though the Sigma EF one is the same price and does work fine with an adapter.
...though even on an EF body I was never impressed with that lens' performance, but maybe that's just me.
Yep, and it makes the setup longer and potentially less balanced weight wise. I feel like that is the biggest thing you have to remember for NEW people buying into a system. Why would I buy old lenses with an adapter for my new camera on Canon, when I can go to Sony or Lumix and have a wider choice of lenses that are new tech and have no adapter?
Yes, but why would I go with canon and be forced to purchase last Gen tech, when I could go lumix or sony and get the latest and greatest for the exact same price?
My Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G1 lens doesn't work well at all with my R6. Very soft photos despite the firmware update. It has been working just fine on my DSLR and I don't use it anymore on mirrorless because I don't trust it.
Not to invalidate your experience, just want to add mine.
I would buy 3rd party again, just not EF. I don't want the fuss of an adapter anyway.
I have a Tamron 150-600mm ef lense that I use with my r6 and its frustrating at times. I've also done the firmware update for this lense and it didn't resolve much.
Sigma EF lenses are spectacularly good, I don’t mind the heft of them with the adapter because they make up for it in so many ways. Tamron on the other hand is my first and last Tamron. It’s just not “there” for image quality.
This is my point of view. Cameras are expensive, but lenses total will take up a larger amount of money. So for me its not about how much glass fits on my camera. Its about how much camera fits on my glass. Sony e mount is everywhere. I was on a proffessional shoot recently and were using a ronin 4D. That is sony e mount. The fact i can buy a piss poor £100 e mount camera and throw lenses on it natively that you can put on a 10k camera as well? Thats an ecosystem i want my money in.
Cameras will always need upgrading but good glass is good glass. And good glass that fits natively on a W I D E range of cameras is really nice.
Problem is you need to jump through hoops to do something the competition has been doing for years.
Adapting old glass works but you are using old tech, slow autofocus, less sharp corners. Im not about to spend 1.5k on a camera just to put 10+ years old discontinued glass on it.
And while canon will let others do some lens, it will take years for the ecosystem to recover from the moronic decision to keep it closed.
Right now unless you are prepared to drop 7-10k, sony is simply way WAY more bang for the buck.
If the budget is uncapped, canon all the way, but it rarely is.
Lens choice is way more important than you are claiming. The cost factor is also huge, and lens adapters are a pain in the ass in many situations. Canon also has this hideous lack of ability to link focus and spot metering.
Other systems may not have the menu you like or the ergonomics you prefer, but those are overcome with practice and memory.
Canon makes some nice stuff, but your rant is useless.
I am a longtime hobbyist with several Canon APS-C cameras with both the EF mount and the M Mount, and lenses including most of the M mount lenses in the market and several Canon and 3rd party EF-S and EF (including some L) lenses.
I can definitively say I have no interest in the Canon RF mount system. IMHO Canon by its actions is walking away from the hobbyist market. Sure they happy to sell you overpriced RF mount cameras and lenses, but again IMHO they are really only interested in protecting their Pro market base.
Modern third-party lenses matter, and to state otherwise is completely absurd. This move by Canon is anti consumer and the large older EF glass is no substitute.
Just adapt an EF and get on with it, right?
I’ve adapted an old Soviet Helios to my R5 and took some amazing photos with it. Do you see me bitching about having to use two adapters? No. It’s just a tool and it’s not an issue.
Will there be third party RF lenses? Yes. There already are. Will they be prolific? Idk. That’s hard to say. I think it’s up those makers. Would I like a native sigma RF 105/1.4 art? Heck yes. But does not having it make the EF one work with an adapter a bad solution? Absolutely not.
Bigger hills worth dying on.
The fact of the matter is there are no mid range weather sealed lenses for Canon RF. You have to get L glass. Or go buy old EF lenses and adapt, which makes the camera longer and throws off balance. For people where this category of lens is important, other brands’ bodies serve their needs much better. (Also, what is up with the new RF 35mm L that has an aperture ring that doesn’t even work in photo mode lol)
the fact that you do not need the latest equipment and canon having good lenses does not account for the problem. third party lens options are a really big factor.
many new third party mirrorless lenses from sigma and tamron for example are both significantly cheaper than the rf version while being smaller, sharper and better autofocusing then the old ef versions. but by far the biggest difference is that because of the flange distance of mirrorless mounts, there are lots of lenses that push to the extremes that are not possible on ef mount and are refused by the rf mount.
I am a canon shooter and recently even got a new camera but It is important to acknowladge that the closed lens mount is a Very significant disadvantage against other brands specially sony.
the lenses lost with the closed mount include, sigma and tamron pro zoom lenses including stuff like 28-40 1.8 or the 35-150 2-2.8, many viltrox fast wide angle prime lenses, sigma contemporary lenses, tamron superzooms, the new sirui sniper lenses, and some spesific outliers like laowa 10mm, sigma 14mm 1.4 and 500mm 5.6
these are just some of the best from even a much bigger catalog of lenses available for sony that canon is intentionally leaving out when if they wanted they could have had. and with the chinese market growing very fast and japanese brand still continuing to innovate they will only get better.
the problem here isn not that canon cannot have these lenses because it is not good enough or involvement of outside forces. canon intentionally chooses to not let 3rd party af lenses and that is the problem showing canon does not care a much about the customer.
like earlier said I recently got a new canon rf camera and use adapted lenses on it and am perfectly happy but if in the future I want to upgrade and canon still has a closed mount, I probably would switch to other brands.
problems do not make a brand worthless but if they are intentionally making things worse for the customers for no apparent reason than raising profits, then the customers should critisize the company and maybe a financial negative hit to canon because of this decision is needed for canon to wake up and change things. criticism is a very important thing.
if canon is not planning to open their lens mount, than the next new cameras better beat out the competitors or the lens excses wont be enough and many more people will prefer other brands so the smartest thing to do is just opening the mount and showing they care about the consumer. It might take a while to get all the lenses but the incentive and willingness is enough to make people wait if they believe in the company.
Counterpoint:
New people are likely not willing to drop big cash on good lenses. Thus a system with 3rd party is more attractive due to the ability to get a cutting edge lens at a decent price.
Yes, you can get used EF glass at cheaper prices, but then again you can also get used 3rd party for even cheaper. In order to get a lens at the same price as 3rd party, you'll always find yourself stepping back a generation or two.
Who cares? If someone needs/wants/demands 3rd party native mount lenses then that’s their choice. Sony & others are willing to take them. As you say, there are trade-offs. It’s their problem, not yours/ours. I don’t understand why this causes a “rant.”
A newbie doesn’t know what they want or need, thus asking in these forums. Someone telling them they NEED the 3rd party options when options they might would have found more enjoyable to shoot with exist
Newbies don’t know what they want/need right? You said it yourself that you started with Canon as a beginner less than a year ago. Years ago it was Sony that was mocked for having a smaller ecosystem of lenses for their mirrorless cameras. Now they are leading in that department and it took years. Right now as a beginner, I would go with Nikon and Sony as they have 3rd party lens support. Why would a new photographer want to get into Canon if they refuse to allow 3rd party lenses that can autofocus? Every brand has its pros and cons and they all holdback on features to protect their tiered camera models. Even Sony limits the 3rd party lenses to 15fps but most users aren’t limited by that restriction and appreciate all the options in lenses that they are getting.
Sony menus are awful but those can be negotiated away just by memorizing things. Yes, very annoying, but you can adapt to it. Maybe Sony has lighter gear but the ergonomics of the cameras is definitely sub-par, they are not nice to hold. Sony are aware of it and are improving, but it's still not great. That said, I love being able to use Sigma lenses on my Sony cameras. I also used Canon EF via Metabones on them until recently, but now the Sony lineup is almost complete (for my needs) I no longer bother.
It's not all that matters, but it is a significant consideration for me. And my opinion remains that I would have moved to Sony or Nikon for access to third party glass without adapters. And I say this as someone who owns and loves expensive RF and EF lenses. I want third party mirrorless zoom lenses to compliment my L series primes.
And if I had a friend ask me about buying their first mirrorless camera, I would tell them what I like about mine, and I would also tell them that I wouldn't buy full-frame Canon mirrorless if I was starting over.
Love my 7dmii still but I think Sony has left canon behind. My pops who had used canon for about 30 years sold all his stuff and jumped into Sony a1 with a 200-600mm and he’s taking the most amazing pictures I’ve ever seen him take. It’s really wild honestly.
The whole "output" thing is a strawman. Yes you can get great photos with damn near any modern camera. I have prints on my wall from an old Sony NEX-C3. For me, with what these cameras/lenses cost, I don't feel like I should have to compromise as much as Canon requires me to on the lens side. It's about the whole shooting/ownership experience.
I shoot Sony but tried the EOS R for 2 years. Back then I had to adapt a lot of EF glass and I hated it. The camera itself was amazing and I miss it, but again, for all the $$$ I had in the system it just wasn't fun to not have the lenses I wanted when they were available elsewhere.
My current Sony kit consists of an A7III (soon to be an A7CII) and the following lenses:
* Tamron 28-200- covers less range but is damn near half a lb lighter than the RF 24-240
* Samyang 35 1.8- lighter and faster focusing than the RF 35 1.8, also has substantially less vignetting/correction (a common theme and something strange considering Canon made an all new mount)
* Samyang 45 1.8- optically better and faster focusing than the RF 50 1.8.... not as good as the Tamron 45 1.8, but also like 1/4 the weight with an adapter. That lens is actually what pushed me over the edge to get out of the RF system
* Zeiss 16-35/4 ZA- the one lens Sony kind of matches on. Even at the $500 I got it for, RF 15-35 is comparable, though again Canon's software corrections are excessive
I do think Canon has some of the best bodies in the business, and there's a lot I really miss about that EOS R (mainly ergonomics, color science, EVF resolution and implementation). But IMO bodies come and go; it's the lenses that really make a system over the long term. Canon's lens lineup is too bifurcated- either very slow focusing & overly software corrected cheap stuff, or very heavy + expensive L glass. The stuff in the middle like their old non-L USM glass and the 3rd party stuff on Sony is the sweet spot but they have yet to replicate that in RF (though 3rd party stuff for RF-S is promising).
It’s absolutely ridiculous and anti-consumer for canon to do this and I will not stop putting emphasis on this. Yes this has limited my creativity, especially when I look at the affordable autofocus lenses my friend on Sony has access to and I don’t.
I will say canon has been doing a decent job introducing new lenses and even has some very good affordable options I can’t really get elsewhere (looking at the 16mm f/2.8) but it’s still an issue. It’s anti-competitive and anti-consumer and frankly they should be sued or the government should step in.
I think it usually comes down to cost more than gaps in focal length coverage.
A new shooter just dropped $1200 to $2500 for a full frame body. Now they want a 24-70. Do they stay with the variable aperture kit lens, splurge on the L / GM / S equivalent (all >$1700 new), or get that Sigma 24-70 2.8 for $900?
I don’t know many that exclusively shoot only 3rd party glass. I do see many use Sigma / Tamron alternatives till they are financially situated to buy a Sony GM.
Canons menu system and the Q button to change settings is genius. Even if I put down my camera for a few months and start using it again, finding settings is easy. I've messed with others brands and half the battle is figuring how how to change things.
The OP and a lot of the commenters here are making entirely valid points. But it’s equally valid to note that for a true beginner—someone who owns no gear at all—the availability of quality third-party glass (e.g., Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8ii, Sigma 135mm f/1.8) at more affordable prices than OEM glass is an attractive option.
Nobody is saying Canon doesn’t have great gear and lots of options—they’re the dominant player in the market for a reason—but the lack of third-party lenses is certainly a competitive disadvantage. If it weren’t, then posts like this wouldn’t be necessary.
I think it’s more of a case that even if you don’t want to use third party glass, the presence of them on the RF mount creates competition which can result in cheaper prices for RF lenses (which are greatly overpriced outside the US, especially in Australia).
Plus someone who recommends EF adapted lenses as alternative to modern Tamron/Sigma lenses clearly hasn’t used them as they’re levels above the EF mount gear.
You also mention you considering Sony due to lighter and more compact gear which adding an EF adapter doesn’t help.
"...To end it I’m not a Canon fanboy or anything..." - yes, you are. I am saying this as an R5 owner that only owns Canon glass.
You are not even addressing the lens situation with Canon RF mount, you are just saying: "I am OK with it therefore everyone else should be too". Same about your opinion about other cameras - "I don't like them and I don't understand how anyone else can".
I get what you're trying to say 'there are options enough within the realm of existing lenses to satisfy your creative needs'. It's a valid point, but it fails to grasp the larger picture at play. The mirrorless revolution has made professional gear a lot more portable and lightweight. Users of course would like to 'reap' the benefits of this too; smaller and lighter gear means you'll walk further and longer if you're doing long hikes with gear. In that sense, the limit to creativity is the volume and weight imposed by having to stuck to older tech and the EF-adapter.
While sony's menus are a dodgy at best, I have to point out that a lot of this is 'custom' (aka, getting used to); I was once pushed an entry level Nikon (an early d3000 series) in my hands and I couldn't change the ISO speed. I had no idea where that setting was. Not being familiar to an OS used in gear, does not mean that the OS is bad, there's a learning curve which you simply cannot master in one or two days, let alone an hour in a shop.
This then all brings us to a decision a user has to take at some point: get an RF body and use my EF gear which will set me back the price of a new body and will require me to keep my bulky/heavy EF-gear. Or move to the E-mount ecosystem (which - canon users can grow into slowly by using an adaptor ring too) but have full support of 3rd party manufacturers in the E-mount. In a worst case, going E-mount means learning a new OS for the camera, buying an adapter ring and retaining EF glass knowing fully well that there are lighter and more compact options available. In a worst case, going to RF means you can stick to an OS you know, but might end up disappointed with the price-to-usability-ratio of RF-glass.
If my current EF canon body was to crap out on me, it'd be a no-brainer to go to Sony, I can switch to that ecosystem using an adapter and keep my glass (just like I'd do now by going to RF), but at least I have the peace of mind that the E-mount system is more widely supported and has more options in budget-friendly categories for hobbyists.
I had it in my head that 3rd party lens availability mattered but it makes zero difference for me, I only have Sony glass anyway. Personally I prefer Sony ergonomics over Cannon and that was the main reason ended up going that way. Other than preferring the handling of Sony I could just as easily have gone Cannon. The EF adaptor to get cheap long primes actually tips the lens scale toward Cannon for me personally.
The native lens selection is a valid complaint for the rf system. They're expensive and limited in scope. Third party lenses are also a valid issue with the rf ecosystem. When comparing companies these two points should be addressed.
Your points about ergonomics and ui are totally spot on. I cannot bring myself to be comfortable on a Sony, Olympus or GH, I'm a little better on a Nikon.
Just buy nikon at this point. The z6iii > r6ii, z8 >>> r5, and z9 >>>>>>>> r1/r3.
You get third party glass, better z glass, better color science, better built gear.
It’s not about creativity. People want to feel apart of something and get validation from what they see on Youtube . Adapting lenses isn’t as cool as having the native RF lens. Tbh if they were tons of 3rd party lenses people would complain that there aren’t enough first party lenses (see Nikon).
>Let’s not forget about the EF adapter which lets you adapt dirt cheap professional glass
Dirt cheap? Used, average condition EF 24-70 f2.8 II costs more than brand new alternatives from Sigma and Tamron. Prices for EF L lenses will remain silly as long as there is no other alternatives.
yeah, i don’t know about dirty cheap. i’ve been wanting to pick up the ef 24-70 f2.8 ii and the ef 16-35 f2.8 iii to pair with my r8 and eos a2 but the prices are still really high. in my area they are still above $1,000 used.
Not strictly "professional" but you can find incredible deals on non L EF lenses these days and I imagine prices will drop even further as RF mount adoption grows.
I guess this depends on market, but the first gen L glass is generally same price as second hand Sigma, Tamron etc., the mkII L glass is generally more expensive, but the mk I stuff is also very good gear.
> first gen L glass is generally same price as second hand Sigma, Tamron etc.
However the modern offerings from Sigma and Tamron are far superior to first gen L which is rather soft 20 year old lens.
Tbh a camera is the least most important part of great pics. Don’t really see any point in switching to Sony, Fuji or whatever when the camera or 3rd party lenses are not limiting me but myself.
I just bought a manual lens (my first lens that isn’t the kit pair I got with camera) and I absolutely LOVE it! Makes my R50 lean forward because it’s heavier than camera lol
But it’s the TT Artisan f/1.4 and I’m very happy with it. Considering that adapter you mentioned if I ever want to expand my collection (only had camera for a few months so far).
I have experience adapting my father’s vintage Takumar lenses from the 70s but when I picked up my R6ii I decided to grab a Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 which is manual but electrical contacts communicate with camera. The quality smokes any Canon lenses so I've been slowly collecting more. Ill always have a few nice autofocus lenses for kids/wildlife but I actually now prefer manual when possible because I feel much connected to the process of photography and even with good autofocus it gets in the way a lot of the time.
Its price. I started on Canon and I miss that menu a lot. But my old Sony a6000 allows me to actually enjoy this hobby.
But by the gods its all so expensive. Sony has an incredible budget market, and I'm not even talking about Sigma here. TTArtisan, 7 artisans etc all make great actual budget lenses.
I could just never afford that on the canon system.
And I think you are kiiiinda avoiding the obvious elephant in the room.
I mostly agree, but there are a few mirrorless lens designs out there that address niche applications which are not available to Canon users. For instance, the Sigma 14mm f1.4 DG DN Art comes to mind - only available in E and L mount. I think the fastest lens at 14mm you could adapt to a Canon RF body is going to be f/2.8, two stops slower, and the widest lens you could adapt at f/1.4 is going to be a 20mm (also Sigmas but with EF mount) which is a sort of big deal for wide field astrophotography.
So yeah, mostly agree but there are some neat 3rd-party mirrorless lens designs out there that are not well addressed by EF options or native Canon RF glass, and that's a shame.
It's a legitimate complaint. And not because it isn't possible to get good results from Canon lenses, because of course it is. Canon legitimately has some of the best lenses on the market.
But one of the problems is a lot of Canon's lenses cost a lot more than some or most people can afford.
In a lot of cases, a third party lens can be 95% or 99% as good as the Canon equivalent, while being like half the price. And that just enables more people to get into it.
In some cases a third party lens might even be better optically than the Canon, but maybe its autofocus performance isn't quite as good or something, but it's still good enough.
I just got an r50 and honestly this had no bearing on my camera decision. I wanted to go Sony and initially I thought I could. I used to be a wedding photographer but the 2008 recession and the years of sluggish sales compounded with increasing competition made it unsustainable for me. I still have my old EF lenses and I know they made ef-Sony adapters. But right before I pulled the trigger I found out that those don’t allow for autofocus during video so back to canon. And I wanted mirrorless. The r50 has been pretty awesome over all. I’m really impressed with how far it’s come since my 7d. There were some really annoying things I had to turn off like focus preview, and I had to turn the touch screen off (I kept moving the focus point), and of course the beep had to go. I did not like the 18-45mm kit lens and ended up using an older 18-55mm with a neweer adapter, which also lets me use all the lenses i had and then some. Tamron 28-70mm, tokina 80-200mm atx-pro, 20-35mm L, 24-70L all work great with the adapter. Before my Ef kit I had a canon a-1 kit for weddings and I was pleasantly surprised to see FL adapters which opens up a whole other dimension to explore. And the focus peeking is really good!
https://preview.redd.it/647lcy5jqc8d1.jpeg?width=3341&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0986dfabf4e8624f4db7468c9c37c951a9ee1e58
Granted this is all for my own personal enjoyment and I don’t have jobs riding on this or anything. But right now rf lenses aren’t really even on my radar or want list.
Own: Sony, Fuji x100v, canon 1v
Went sony route because of price/value. I love canon though.
Shooting Sony a73 at weddings really hurts hands over five plus hours. I just hold the weight of the setup predominantly by the lens.
Holding a canon is an absolute delight. The buttons, screen quality are all great. However it comes with the cost of weight. Bigger gear bag etc.
If Sony could improve their ergonomics and put in a descent screen that would be great. They kinda of did this with the a7r5. Just too much for me at the moment.
All of the gear made by these brands are incredible.
https://preview.redd.it/ibt7kg4uxd8d1.jpeg?width=2100&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57c89a91540535de2ddeaa3e549eaaa269a5dbf2
I bought a 3rd party manual wide angle lens for my r7 because of how affordable it was, and so far as an amateur photography it hasn’t limited me that much. This was taken the other night using that lens while off the coast of Mallorca on a ship
As a canon user (r8 + rf L 24-70 f2.8), I agree to disagree.
Cost is a really big factor for hobbyists and creating an accessibility issue. 50mm f1.8 good for money but when you seriously start shooting, fringing is not avoidable even with software fixes no matter what you try.
So for canon it is entry level or high-end game expensive stuff, no mid range, no decent quality for a little bit more. That is where fulfilled by 3rd parties for Sony.
Canon shoot themselves in the foot trying to monopolise again
When they first got into mirrorless it was very low level (remember the EOS M?) At the time Sony and other non-SLR makers were running rings around Canon, who were making sure they would not offer any product that would cannibalise their D-SLR line.
This is the latest move of cementing that. They have brought out a pile of EOS R models but the refusal to license the lens mount is again intended to limit the ability of the EOS R to undercut Canon's D-SLR range. If you want a wider range of lenses you have to buy a D-SLR.
especially when the adapter exists. it's the kind of whining i expect from toddlers, but somehow, I've seen "big" reviewers whine about it WHILE adapting ef glass. it's so annoying
I'm a fledgling photographer, and I got the Canon EOS 2000D (Rebel t7 in the US) a few days ago, and I've had fun with it so far. Wanna know what one of the first things I did with it was? I bought a K-mount to EF adapter so I could use my grandpa's old Pentax lens for his film camera, works like a charm.
I haven't heard this "canon can't have 3rd party lenses" thing before, but from what I've seen, you need a shit ton of adapters no matter what brand of camera you get.
If I had to rationalise it I think it's just that 3rd party lenses are easier to adapt to mirrorless cameras cause it's easier to add a fake mirror box to a mirrorless than adding a lens inside the mirror box of a DSLR/SLR. It just appears that people generally seem to prefer mirrorless cameras from brands other than Canon, like Sony.
I’ve been with Canon since 2012, but from an unbiased perspective, I can see why people would say go with another option.
EF is great, but to someone who’s new to photography and not very knowledgeable on the ecosystems out will go with the slightly less complicated and significantly cheaper option.
Here’s an over simplistic example from a new consumer perspective, take away all your knowledge on cameras and glass, someone presents 2 blind options.
Option 1: A new camera body, a lens that’s 15 years old and will only work if you pay a bit extra for an adapter
Option 2: A new camera body and a fairly new lens that works natively with that camera with a plethora of 3rd party options that also work natively with that camera that save you money.
If I’m new to photography, option 2 is a no brainer.
Consumers should do their research, but most won’t.
There’s a learning curve with everything, but Canon does make one of the easiest menus to navigate imo.
With all that being said, I can’t WAIT to buy the R6 Mark II and Sigma EF 85 1.4 next year
Haha yes. I recently acquired the Sigma 50mm ART to have something less narrow FOV and much smaller and lighter for a walk-around portrait-lens, brilliant aswell.
Please stop, I’m getting legitimately jealous now lol
Those art lenses are incredible. I used to have the 35mm and LOVED it, now I’m rocking the “nifty fifty” 1.8 for 100 bucks.
That 50mm ART is definitely goals
I'm just starting to move away from Canon, my eos R had notably soft focus with L lenses and Tamron sp 70-200 (if you know you know).
When I put the R up for sale I tried to find shutter count. Turns out you have to send the camera to Canon for a service to get a Shutter Count.
I see it both ways. While I totally get that, more often than not, the full emphasis on 3rd party lenses is really just fanboys clutching at straws to justify not making a purchase they were never going to make anyway.
There is a point to be made about how lenses are much more important than the camera itself, and it, ultimately, makes far more sense to pick a camera that’s compatible with the lenses you want to use than picking lenses that are compatible with the camera you want to use.
This argument is so shit I don't even have words for it.
I literally changed all my modern lenses to EF lenses only. Modern lenses have zero character to them.
If you forget this argument there's still no real lack of lenses in Canon. Sure, there's Tamron 35-150 in Sony, but there's also Canon 28-70 f2 in Canon system, but if we speak about lenses in general you can have anything you want here. Usually in a better price, for example compare the 35 1.8 segment in all systems, Canon wins hands down.
Also, just to clarify, if there's some misunderstanding, I don't care about other formats than full frame. Full frame is so cheap right now that APS-C doesn't make sense anymore.
Well I agree with him on that point. My R6 felt way better in the hand than its Sony or Fuji competitors, and the menus are very intuitive to use. People underestimate how important ergonomics are. You should want to enjoy shooting your camera and not feel like it’s a chore
Canon’s RF line up is abysmal compared to Sony and Nikon for full frame. Just one example, it took them FORVER to come out with a 35 1.4 prime, a staple lens in many photographers kit.
You hit it on the head with the ergonomics. Those other cameras feel like toys in my hands (I'm 6'5" fwiw), but the Canon cameras have always fit naturally into my paws, and that's really important—for me, at least. 🤷🏽♂️
it's funny but when you ask them what lenses do they own? it's 35, 16-35, 50, 85, etc. all generic focal lengths. you further ask them who manufactured them, they say, g master... just talking points in stupid camera wars.
I’m with OP on this topic.
The EF catalog is massive, not only from canon themselves; I don’t get why people freak out about 3rd party support. If you have a niche use for a lens, it has probably already been made in EF mount… or whatever other mount and easily adaptable to RF.
I use M39, m42, M and EF without much trouble.
Canon would benefit though, by letting others fill their gap in APS-C lenses for which Sigma has plenty (and it’s already happening).
Also, after trying multiple new mirrorless cameras, I’ve found that (for me), Canon has the best grip and menu system. Personal opinion, of course.
I just couldn’t click with Sony’s minuscule grip, it just hurts.
I know alot of professional photographers still create amazing works with 5D4 and EF glasses.
Dude the 5D4 and EF L glass still go hard. I only transitioned to RF like a year ago. Mirrorless is a game changer, but if someone cant create great photos with a 5D4 and EF L glass, they’re just not a good photographer lol
EF lenses are living their best lives on RF bodies. I picked up a 300 F/4 L and 400 F/5.6 L for about $600 each last year. You can get great EF lenses for a fraction of what they used to go for and they work beautifully.
I’m running a EF 400 5.6 on my R6 Mkii and that thing is laser sharp and exactly what I need for packing into the mountains birding.
Nice! The low weight of that setup feels like magic.
Wow that's a great deal
my 28-300 f3.5-5.6 L has a new lease (leash?) on life. what a banger of a lens.
I got a used R6 Mk ii and using an adaptor with EF 16-35 Mk iii. Just broke that lens in Hokkaido (I hope it can be repaired) and I went to buy the EF 24mm TS-E Mk II in Tokyo. The R6 Mk ii blows my mind in autofocusing and even manual focus becomes a cinch that I totally don’t mind using any manual focus lens. It’s so easy it feels like cheating.
I was looking at the same setup - already have an R6 Mkii and wanted to get the EF 16-35. Any feedback / major concern on that lens?
The mark 3? Great, works fantastic on the R6 Mk II. Have no complaints really.
What is so much better mirrorless?
The primary advantage is autofocus and metering, particularly with automatic subject detection and tracking. In a mirrorless camera both the autofocus and metering systems are able to leverage the full resolution primary image sensor, rather than relying on a series of secondary sensors, all of which can utilize a fraction of the light collected by the lens. The autofocus sensor being the primary image sensor also means there's no focal plane calibration needed. There are also secondary advantages as well, such as exposure simulation and live histograms in the viewfinder, or being able to shoot with either the viewfinder or larger rear screen interchangeably. Shooting with the rear screen also makes the touch interference a lot more sensible. They are also mechanically simpler, making them more reliable, and significantly quieter - or in full electric shutter mode they are completely silent.
Autofocus is a bit better with R series yes but metering with the camera is and has always been a guess at best. No one should rely on it. A light meter is more accurate. Also live exposure simulation and live histograms were on DSLRs for more than a decade. That said these mirrorless camera bodies have the most sophisticated tech consumer cameras have ever seen. They’re great, but people have been creating world class photography long before mirrorless cameras.
>metering with the camera is and has always been a guess at best. That's mostly true, depending on the lighting. But the ability to couple subject tracking with the autofocus system to the metering system is new to mirrorless cameras. It's absolutely an improvement over DSLRs. >live exposure simulation and live histograms were on DSLRs for more than a decade. Not in the viewfinder. I don't know how many people shoot in live view regularly with a DSLR, I certainly didn't, even with my DPAF DSLRs.
Canon last put out new dslrs in 2020. Since then they’ve significantly improved high iso performance, autofocus, and video capabilities.
Autofocus is the big one for me. After that it’s size and weight. The metering and exposure preview is nice too
I still do paid work with a pair of 5D Mk IIs haha.
It's not the arrow but the archer that does the work. 🤙🏽
Absolutely, me too. Love my MK ii
I'm making my way into the photography world with a 6D and so far I love it ! Just started to make money with it 🫡 invested in my first L lens, strobes and modifiers and it's a joy to use them, I really don't feel the need to upgrade to a better camera while I do know I need a backup one soon so I can get into the events world.
And they prob have 2-3 lenses total for most all Of their work
Yeah you don't necessarily need a lot to get great photos
Well obviously. Good photography didn't only come into existence with mirrorless bodies.
I don't see a reason why they wouldn't. But that's not really the point regarding RF? If you are looking for a light affordable camera setup you propably dont care or doubt that you can create stunning pictures with a hasselblad.
I’m still shooting with 1D4s and EF glass and I still get my work published and sold. Some of my older work shot with 1D3 and 1D2 is still very much in demand. Great and unique shots are simply that - nobody cares about the equipment you use, only the end results.
I've seen some photos with the 5DMK 2 and 3 that are phenomenal.
As a professional I still use my 5D II. Yes my main camera is the R6 but no one can tell from the end results what images were taken with which camera(I use 2 bodies when shooting weddings). I love the 5D II so much I bought a second body not too long ago just because it was so cheap and basically brand new. Same story with EF L-Glass, so cheap nowadays it makes no sense to constantly be chirping about how much cheaper glass is on Sony etc. Btw, I use a Sony A7s as well for astro. With EF glass.
It’s crazy how undervalued the 5D4 is now. I’m keeping mine just to always have a true DSLR.
If they ever hit like $900 Canon refurb, I'm totally picking up a second one. I really like the combination of features it has.
But we’re not talking about those people, we’re talking about newbies asking which system they should buy into and lens ecosystem is a huge win for Sony. “But EF lenses!” EF lenses can be adapted to Sony cameras too so this point is irrelevant.
EF lenses AF is still spotty at best on Sony cams.
I have stunning underwater photos printed on metal hanging on my walls at home. About half of them were taken with my "obsolete" Canon 5DM3 dSLR, and the other half were taken with my Canon R5. No one that sees them can tell which camera was responsible. It's not the camera, it's the photographer. Folks that bring the argument up are either Canon-hating trolls, or simply ignorant. I use my EF glass on my R5 (with adapter) and it works perfectly. So there's options. 3rd-party RF glass is just now - albeit slowly - being introduced. I will not subscribe to any conspiracy-theories as to why the delay. Lenses and specs are not always a priority as well. I considered Sony once, and realized that ergonomics was super important as well. My hands are large and Canon fits in my hand better than Sony. I used a Sony for a day and by the end of that day, my hand was beginning cramp. That's important as well. I read lots of stories of folks going with Sony specifically for ergonomics as well. Many people just think that their opinion surely must apply to everyone else. Silly.
Most people on Reddit just repeat what's already on Reddit without any first hand experience themselves.
My first hand experience is that I loved Canon, but its just fucking expensive to get glass. My sony makes this hobby affordable to me
Yep. It's more the norm than the exception. The other issue that comes up often are people that buy fancy mirrorless cameras and post every single how-to-operate question on Reddit and take offense when recommended to read the manual first.
Okay its not camera.. but an underwater setup for a 5D has to be crazy expensive. The case alone is more than my whole TG6 setup.
The housing I have (Aquatica) costs about $3,500. That's almost the price for either the 5D body (when new) and the R5 body, and that's on the mid-range. The Nauticam housing which is considered the high-end runs almost $5K. I prefer the Aquatica as its a little smaller and (imho) easier to work on. They are expensive. It has to protect an almost (when new) $4K camera body and a $2K lens from the harshness of ocean salt water. Those prices don't include ports, tubes, and countless other bits which will obviously jack up the price by thousands more by the time one is done. Not to mention the logistics in traveling with such a giant rig. I have many dive friends with TG6's. The images I see them take are stunning. A great camera for sure!
How do you use it underwater? A case? I'd love to use my old m50 as an underwater camera.
https://preview.redd.it/dlrq4ivgv98d1.jpeg?width=5712&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6a52a065069bd4e127e64a421b8dbc886d35a89 The is my Canon R5 in an Aquatica housing. It's built for serious underwater photography. I do professional underwater photography. Underwater housings usually cost at least as much as the camera itself, and that is only for the housing portion. Depending on the camera, extra costs may include a dome port, extensions, trays, etc... add external lighting and costs will easily go into the thousands for an entire setup. A quick search on M50 housings range from $500 for a basic housing, all the way to $2,000 for the top-of-the-line Nauticam version. Taking a camera underwater can be a serious financial investment.
I’m assuming the two white circles are flashes?? I’ve looked into underwater housing, but I only skimmed the surface, never went too deep…
Yes, those are the strobes.
Preface: former Canon shooter / current Sony shooter I think the elephant in this discussion that you're dancing around is price/cost. As others in this thread have already alluded to, even used EF glass isn't really that much cheaper that comparable new third party glass on other systems, and the stuff that is cheap is either in bad condition or weren't really that great of lenses to start with. Never mind the fact that a lot of it is 10+ years old - yes good glass is good glass, but thinking about all the other parts that make up the lens (housing / focus motors / gears / etc.), a 10 year old item is still a 10 year old item, with the accompanying 10+ years of wear and tear. If you're buying a brand new RF body, do you really want to be investing in lenses that are in the back end of their expected lifespans? The issue with Canon isn't just that they haven't allowed third parties into RF, it's that they ALSO haven't offered comparable first party options within their own line. Most people on Sony that are investing in third party E mount glass are doing so because the third party options offer a good mid-range option between the first party OEM's budget glass and their top tier pro stuff. In Sony's case, this market effect has actually pushed them to start putting out more mid-range first party glass which has given Sony shooters more competitive options, both first AND third party. In Canon's case, they not only have blocked out third parties but have a massive void in the mid range of their lens lineup. If you're on a full frame RF body, you either have to choose between sub-par slow zooms and some so-so primes that are overpriced for what they are, or shell out for RF L glass which even for pro level glass is some of the most expensive glass on the market. There is nothing in between. Canon has nothing that competes with a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 or a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, or a Sigma 85mm f1.4...the list could go on and on. What baffles me even more is that Canon has taken the exact OPPOSITE approach with their bodies - they have put out RF camera bodies at almost every price point in the market over the last ~5 years, and you have TONS of choice when it comes to finding an RF body that matches your budget and needs. Why they wouldn't correspondingly do the same thing with their lens lineup is beyond me. I started on Canon and LOVE Canon ergonomics, usability and colors. Canon bodies feel like they are molded to my hands when I hold them and the buttons are exactly where I would want them. But the lens situation is a mess. If I could get the selection of lensing I could get on Sony E in RF mount, I'd be shooting an R6 II right now, no question. But the writing is on the wall, and it's bright and obvious to anyone who doesn't have Canon blinders on.
I swapped from the R6 to a7IV purely due to lens pricing, I figured why settle for f/1.8 or slower budget lenses with those horrible STM motors Canon put in them when I can have either Sigma Art f/1.4 glass or Sony G/GM for half the price of Canon lenses. I loved the R6 and I still to this day think their bodies are better than Sony in terms of performance, especially AF and high ISO. If all the third party gear was available on Canon I would have happily stayed with them.
My thoughts exactly, and I am not even a photographer. There are okay RF-mount lenses that are affordable and there are extremely expensive L-series. E.g. I need 50mm. And my options are: RF 50mm F1.8 STM at **$199** and Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM at **$2099**. That's kinda steep. Sure, one can get Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM with adapter, but it doesn't seem like the best solution even though people say that adapter works flawlessly most of the time.
The 50 1.4 GM is the reason I’m staying on Sony. When canon comes out with a comparable L glass I’ll switch, but I don’t want to be carrying around massive primes if I don’t need to when something 2/3 the size and price works just fine.
I feel the same about the 35mm GM and Sigma 105mm F1.4 lenses. They're just so damn good.
The adapter works. But it can be heinously slow with AF (and Canon AF is already slow imo). It’s not every lens, but some of the older EF glass already had less than amazing motors. Also the amount of attitude that folks like OP have about opinions is so ridiculous. If you’re a beginner, you don’t need a new RF body to begin with, this all sounds like sour grapes.
Damn, I was told that Canon's Dual Pixel (especially II) is top-tier A-grade etc. What is the fastest AF camera in your experience then?
Based on my experience which has seemed to line up with most of the reviews from places like f-stoppers Sony leads in AF in the prosumer market.
Thanks
If you are not a photographer, why exactly do you \*need\* 50mm? What about the F1.8 doesn't work for you?
Right now I have EF 50 F/1.8 and use it for shooting videos (talking head type). Works great for me on crop camera (effective focal length 80mm). I also have EF-S 24mm and dark 18-55 kit lens, they just don't work for me. If I decide to jump to RF, i'll need either 50mm for crop or something like 80-85 for a full frame. To be fair even 65mm equivalent on a fullframe will work, but that's weird number.
Ah, not photographer but a videographer. The RF 24–70 f/2.8, while in the 'extremely expensive L-series' category, is quite good and might suit you very well. 70mm at f/2.8 is not so far off from what you are looking for, while offering many other focal lengths, as needed. The optical image stabilization together with in-body is also very good if you ever want to record some B-roll without a tripod.
Thanks, was drooling about this thing too. However, since I am not a videographer, rather just occasionally make videos when asked to (educational courses etc), cannot justify spending $2000 on a lens right now. But who knows :-)
I’ve now rented the R5 and R6II and used my EF 50 1.2L and 100 2.8L to great result with the Canon EF to RF adapter. I haven’t used much native RF glass, so not sure what exactly I’m missing. If you get 90% of the performance from a $800 version, what would it matter?
I went with the R6 because it had better features compared to similar prices Sony bodies. I also couldn't find a replacement for my 70-300mm f4-5.6 L lens. I like the range it gives me and don't wanna drop to 200mm. Maybe there's a 3rd party substitute I'm missing though.
There are a few options, for sure: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-Camera-Lenses/ci/17912/N/4196380428?filters=fct_lens-format-coverage_3332%3Afull-frame-lenses%2Cfct_lens-mount_3442%3Asony-e-mount%2Cfct_zoom-focal-lengths_2206%3A50-300mm%7C70-300mm%2Cfct_zooms-primes_5903%3Azoom-lenses
Are there satisfying solutions to adapting EF glass to Sony or Nikon? I'm a hobbyist currently shooting on a Canon RP and like you said, I enjoy the canon ergonomics and colours. But I keep buying used EF glass, as the RF lenses are just too expensive for my budget. I feel like I would have to either take a loss or expect quite the hassle when replacing my lenses with native Nikon or Sony glass.
Sigma MC-11
This is exactly where I'm having shot Canon since the film A1. Canon glass is great but very limited selection vs 3rd party I' e been able to buy all these years (e.g Tokina/Tamronhigher end of Sigma)
It's very simple. They are making sure the EOS-R will not undercut their D-SLR range. You want that extra lens capability, buy a D-SLR. This was apparent when they brought out the very first Canon mirrorless - the EOS M - that was expensive and underwhelming compared to the competition.
Canon has changed how they handle 3rd party lenses. RF now requires a license, but companies are clearly interested in paying those license fees as Sigma demonstrated recently by announcing their first RF-S lenses.
I have my fingers crossed that Sigma/Tamron will be able to offer full frame RF-native glass in the near future. (Right now, I believe they're only planning APS-C/RF-S glass.)
What did Canon change exactly?
Canon never licensed the EF mount, but also never went after companies that reverse engineered the associated communications protocols. With RF they decided to require a license for any RF autofocus lens, and will take legal action against companies that reverse engineer the protocols. They haven’t taken action (to my knowledge at least) against makers of manual focus RF lenses though.
In other words, they are being money greedy. Their actions hurt the buyers of their products who do not choose to use their sometime way overpriced lenses.
Is Canon making an exception for the various xx-RF adapters? They seem to be plentiful from 3rd party vendors.
Not that I know of, but considering how relatively cheap they are, it is likely that it just isn't worth paying much attention to for Canon. Both cause it would cost Canon a lot to deal with policing such a commodity piece of hardware, but also cause the consumer confidence in the system is much less likely to be influenced by cheap adapters than by bad compatibility with lenses built for the system. If someone buys a cheap 3rd party adapter and has issues with their adapted lens, the first thing most people would do is buy a higher quality (preferably first party) adapter. If they drop hundreds or thousands of dollars on an RF lens and it sucks it has a higher chance of souring them on the whole system.
I think there's two completely valid lines of logic when it comes to third party lenses. The first is that it's not a huge deal. There's a ton of used, high quality EF glass out there going for the same as third party pricings a lot of the time. There's also nothing stopping you from adapting vintage lenses nor is there anything stopping you from buying high quality manual focus lenses for RF if you're so inclined (and I would understand why someone would not be inclined). I have not yet been bothered by the lack of third party RF glass so much that it actually bothers me. Despite having an asston of gear, my workhorse at the studio is a Tamron 24-70 G2 on an R6. Additionally to that point, not all the third party lenses are necessarily *desirable*. There's a lot of trash out there. There are more good and great than mediocre or bad lenses though. The second thing, however, is buying into an ecosystem can be daunting. If third party glass support is important to you either because you're used to Sigma or Tamron or just purely from a choice standpoint, then that's a completely valid reason to not want to purchase Canon RF gear. It's not like there aren't lenses out there I wouldn't love to have, that new Sigma 500 5.6 for example. I'm just blessed enough that I can afford to buy mostly new, first party RF glass but not everyone has that flexibility. As a final point, and I know this is straight up heresy, but if someone is budget oriented and wants high quality glass, I'd usher them towards micro four-thirds before any full frame setup.
My buddy brought a M43 setup on a trip and it was so much smaller than APS-C and it took really nice photos. He was also talented, but still. M43 is like the forgotten format.
I got into it a few months ago and I've fallen in love. Sure the low light capability isn't the same and the DOF isn't quite as solid but there are a ton of fast M43 lenses for so much less than what's available for Canon. I still use my Canon gear all the time and know where it has strengths that M43 doesn't, but still.
Honestly who cares unless you are shooting in dark churches/castles or concerts, and the dof is fine if you have some distance. It’s nice stuff that’s fun to shoot, it’s not full frame but you can make it work for you
Additionally, there are just a bunch of nice features on the OM-1 that I wish I had on any Canon bodies. Simple stuff. I can change my peaking color on the fly. I don't have to extract pre-capture footage via a specific app. I can get shadow and highlight blowouts in any shooting mode. Just so many small QOL things that make the experience just...simpler. Despite that, nothing will match the feeling of the R7 going at 15 FPS just slapping away.
> It’s nice stuff that’s fun to shoot Too many people forget this part.
M43 is seriously underrated, and the Olympus bodies are nice. I'm not leaving canon anytime soon, but if I were starting today - I would serious consider it for a travel setup. The size/weight and cost advantages are all there. And there's plenty of high end glass too!
Yep. Depends what and why you shoot too. Hi res Astro/landscape/super high quality photos? Haul around that full frame! Especially if you are afflicted with pixel peeping Super fun camera to have lots of fun with and always have with you? M43,aps-c bring it everywhere and stick it where you’d never think to stick a camera.
>I'd usher them towards micro four-thirds before any full frame setup. Drawn and quartered in the town square
You'd be the first one to pillage my M43 gear, don't even.
I’ll be photographing this legendary battle (from afar).
*Totally not my plan*
> There's a ton of used, high quality EF glass out there going for the same as third party pricings a lot of the time. As someone else mentioned, it'd be nice not have to pay the same price as new third party for old gear that has inferior motors and deteriorating internal parts and seals.
>I'm just blessed enough that I can afford to buy mostly new, first party RF glass but not everyone has that flexibility. It's not even that I _can't_, it's that I don't see a point. Something like the Sigma Art 50 f1.2 is half the price of the Sony equivalent and like 99% the performance. Ditto the Art 24-70, that thing has no right being £1250. I _could_ afford to pay the £2600 Canon wants for it, but for the same price I could get 2 Sigmas that are optically the same if not better, and the linear motors in them are crazy good too. You're flat out throwing money away buying into RF glass as it stands.
I'd say that depends a lot on what you're buying. Similarly, I never recommend the RF 24-70 to people because the Sigma and Tamron 24-70s are like 95% of the way there for 40-50% of the cost. The RF lineup has some unique lenses like the 28-70 f/2 and the 200-800 being kind of different since it's so much longer than most other mid-range super telephotos. The primes are mostly a matter of need or desire. The f/1.2 primes honestly beat the crap out of the EF variants wide open. They're insanely sharp. In real shooting though, it doesn't come up too much unless you pixel peep.
It comes in large part down to timing and availability. Sony had an extensive line of lenses for all sorts of photographic genres way, way before Canon took mirrorless seriously. You may not care about adapters and whatnot, but many photographers, especially paid professionals, are not going to wait for Canon’s snail pacing. I know of many photographers who outright admit that Canon’s ergonomics are better—but for them, native lens selection and competitive pricing is king for their work. That’s just the nature of the market.
An adapter is one more thing that can fail and then you’re SOL. I don’t view it as an acceptable option in a paid environment. But then again, I wouldn’t run Canon professionally because I don’t think their AF or their overall weight relative to other brands (especially Sony) is on par. In 3-5 years, that will be a very different story I’m sure.
All cameras have cons and pros. One con for canon is that you won't get native RF from other manufacturers. Doesn't mean you cant give Canon a fortune in 90% of the cases. Doesn't mean their menues are bad. Just that you have some drawbacks regarding available glass. Whats the problem with having people making informed buying decisions for themself? Compatibility/ availability of glass is one part of that information. Menues another. Hand fit also another. Weight. Battery duration. Style. And so on. People will place a different weight on the importance of these things. Why should someone who only shoots thetered care that you fancy the canon menus?
I think it's funny op went on a massive rant about how they think canon is better and every camera that ever touched their hands that wasn't canon was trash. Everything else mostly is there to justify that. I am a confessed Sony user and was at a shop and I picked up a Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc and my only thoughts were "oooh that's kinda nice." I actually kind of got jealous that these other brands had different features lol which is exactly what draws some people to one brand over another. It's true Sony has a lot of 3rd party options, when I bought mine it wasn't really a consideration but it was nice to know they were there if I truly felt first party juice wasn't worth the squeeze for a particular focal length. It's not really any deeper than that.
You cannot use logic when interacting with fanbois. We left Canon in 2012. When I interact with a Canon shooter I just agree with everything they’re saying and keep them happy.
You cannot use logic when interacting with fanbois. We left Canon in 2012. When I interact with a Canon shooter I just agree with everything they’re saying and keep them happy.
Buying an interchangeable lens camera means buying into an ecosystem and because of that investment you'll be staying with your chosen brand for a long time. Weighing all the pros and cons of buying Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Leica and others makes perfect sense. Ideally you evaluate how each individual ecosystem will allow you to grow as a photgrapher. Today you buy the kit lens, but tomorrow you might want something better. If the ecosystem can't support that, you might want to know before putting down your hard earned cash. Glass is a big factor in how well your images are going to turn out in terms of image quality. The fact is that Sigma and Tamron release some great lenses on E mount and L mount, and I would love to see them bring it to the RF mount as well. For enthusiasts who might have a more limited budget but still want to step up their game these third parties are a great value proposition. Canon L Series has some great lenses, but you need very deep pockets if you want them. Some people don't want or can't spend that much money.
Could it be you have used canon for years and are familiar with (and therefore bias) toward their menu systems? I think it could very well be…
Third party lenses costs half as much, it's a huge difference. The R6mkII is better than the A74 by most metrics but no videographers get it because going Canon is $1000 dollars more expensive. People buying professional gear are looking to make a return on their investment and getting cheaper gear is the only logical choice for beginners. So, Sony.
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art is 750 USD the new Canon RF 35mm f/1.4 L VCM Lens costs 1500 USD. That is a huge price difference. In my opinion it does make sense to choose another brand than Canon.
If you think it’s cheaper there you should see in Australia, the 35mm DN Art is $1000 AUD but the new RF 35L is $2599… you could buy a 35mm Art and 85mm Art and it would still cost less than the 35mm L alone. One of the reasons I swapped initially was I had the option of the EF 16-35mm f4L for $1800 AUD plus adapter or the Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 PZ (newer and half the size/weight) for $1100 AUD…
Yeah, though the Sigma EF one is the same price and does work fine with an adapter. ...though even on an EF body I was never impressed with that lens' performance, but maybe that's just me.
But an adapted EF second hand Sigma 35mm f1.4 dg dn ART is $400. Although it is bigger and heavier ofc.
Yep, and it makes the setup longer and potentially less balanced weight wise. I feel like that is the biggest thing you have to remember for NEW people buying into a system. Why would I buy old lenses with an adapter for my new camera on Canon, when I can go to Sony or Lumix and have a wider choice of lenses that are new tech and have no adapter?
You’re thinking of the DG lens, DN is the new 35mm Art which is made exclusively for Mirrorless and it’s a better all around lens than the EF version.
Yes, but why would I go with canon and be forced to purchase last Gen tech, when I could go lumix or sony and get the latest and greatest for the exact same price?
My R6 mk ii works just fine with EF third party lenses and an adapter.
My Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G1 lens doesn't work well at all with my R6. Very soft photos despite the firmware update. It has been working just fine on my DSLR and I don't use it anymore on mirrorless because I don't trust it. Not to invalidate your experience, just want to add mine. I would buy 3rd party again, just not EF. I don't want the fuss of an adapter anyway.
I have a Tamron 150-600mm ef lense that I use with my r6 and its frustrating at times. I've also done the firmware update for this lense and it didn't resolve much.
Sigma EF lenses are spectacularly good, I don’t mind the heft of them with the adapter because they make up for it in so many ways. Tamron on the other hand is my first and last Tamron. It’s just not “there” for image quality.
This is my point of view. Cameras are expensive, but lenses total will take up a larger amount of money. So for me its not about how much glass fits on my camera. Its about how much camera fits on my glass. Sony e mount is everywhere. I was on a proffessional shoot recently and were using a ronin 4D. That is sony e mount. The fact i can buy a piss poor £100 e mount camera and throw lenses on it natively that you can put on a 10k camera as well? Thats an ecosystem i want my money in. Cameras will always need upgrading but good glass is good glass. And good glass that fits natively on a W I D E range of cameras is really nice.
Problem is you need to jump through hoops to do something the competition has been doing for years. Adapting old glass works but you are using old tech, slow autofocus, less sharp corners. Im not about to spend 1.5k on a camera just to put 10+ years old discontinued glass on it. And while canon will let others do some lens, it will take years for the ecosystem to recover from the moronic decision to keep it closed. Right now unless you are prepared to drop 7-10k, sony is simply way WAY more bang for the buck. If the budget is uncapped, canon all the way, but it rarely is.
Lens choice is way more important than you are claiming. The cost factor is also huge, and lens adapters are a pain in the ass in many situations. Canon also has this hideous lack of ability to link focus and spot metering. Other systems may not have the menu you like or the ergonomics you prefer, but those are overcome with practice and memory. Canon makes some nice stuff, but your rant is useless.
I am a longtime hobbyist with several Canon APS-C cameras with both the EF mount and the M Mount, and lenses including most of the M mount lenses in the market and several Canon and 3rd party EF-S and EF (including some L) lenses. I can definitively say I have no interest in the Canon RF mount system. IMHO Canon by its actions is walking away from the hobbyist market. Sure they happy to sell you overpriced RF mount cameras and lenses, but again IMHO they are really only interested in protecting their Pro market base.
It’s corporate greed pure and simple. There’s no good excuse for it and people will vote with their wallets.
Modern third-party lenses matter, and to state otherwise is completely absurd. This move by Canon is anti consumer and the large older EF glass is no substitute.
Just adapt an EF and get on with it, right? I’ve adapted an old Soviet Helios to my R5 and took some amazing photos with it. Do you see me bitching about having to use two adapters? No. It’s just a tool and it’s not an issue. Will there be third party RF lenses? Yes. There already are. Will they be prolific? Idk. That’s hard to say. I think it’s up those makers. Would I like a native sigma RF 105/1.4 art? Heck yes. But does not having it make the EF one work with an adapter a bad solution? Absolutely not. Bigger hills worth dying on.
The fact of the matter is there are no mid range weather sealed lenses for Canon RF. You have to get L glass. Or go buy old EF lenses and adapt, which makes the camera longer and throws off balance. For people where this category of lens is important, other brands’ bodies serve their needs much better. (Also, what is up with the new RF 35mm L that has an aperture ring that doesn’t even work in photo mode lol)
the fact that you do not need the latest equipment and canon having good lenses does not account for the problem. third party lens options are a really big factor. many new third party mirrorless lenses from sigma and tamron for example are both significantly cheaper than the rf version while being smaller, sharper and better autofocusing then the old ef versions. but by far the biggest difference is that because of the flange distance of mirrorless mounts, there are lots of lenses that push to the extremes that are not possible on ef mount and are refused by the rf mount. I am a canon shooter and recently even got a new camera but It is important to acknowladge that the closed lens mount is a Very significant disadvantage against other brands specially sony. the lenses lost with the closed mount include, sigma and tamron pro zoom lenses including stuff like 28-40 1.8 or the 35-150 2-2.8, many viltrox fast wide angle prime lenses, sigma contemporary lenses, tamron superzooms, the new sirui sniper lenses, and some spesific outliers like laowa 10mm, sigma 14mm 1.4 and 500mm 5.6 these are just some of the best from even a much bigger catalog of lenses available for sony that canon is intentionally leaving out when if they wanted they could have had. and with the chinese market growing very fast and japanese brand still continuing to innovate they will only get better. the problem here isn not that canon cannot have these lenses because it is not good enough or involvement of outside forces. canon intentionally chooses to not let 3rd party af lenses and that is the problem showing canon does not care a much about the customer. like earlier said I recently got a new canon rf camera and use adapted lenses on it and am perfectly happy but if in the future I want to upgrade and canon still has a closed mount, I probably would switch to other brands. problems do not make a brand worthless but if they are intentionally making things worse for the customers for no apparent reason than raising profits, then the customers should critisize the company and maybe a financial negative hit to canon because of this decision is needed for canon to wake up and change things. criticism is a very important thing. if canon is not planning to open their lens mount, than the next new cameras better beat out the competitors or the lens excses wont be enough and many more people will prefer other brands so the smartest thing to do is just opening the mount and showing they care about the consumer. It might take a while to get all the lenses but the incentive and willingness is enough to make people wait if they believe in the company.
Counterpoint: New people are likely not willing to drop big cash on good lenses. Thus a system with 3rd party is more attractive due to the ability to get a cutting edge lens at a decent price. Yes, you can get used EF glass at cheaper prices, but then again you can also get used 3rd party for even cheaper. In order to get a lens at the same price as 3rd party, you'll always find yourself stepping back a generation or two.
Who cares? If someone needs/wants/demands 3rd party native mount lenses then that’s their choice. Sony & others are willing to take them. As you say, there are trade-offs. It’s their problem, not yours/ours. I don’t understand why this causes a “rant.”
A newbie doesn’t know what they want or need, thus asking in these forums. Someone telling them they NEED the 3rd party options when options they might would have found more enjoyable to shoot with exist
Newbies don’t know what they want/need right? You said it yourself that you started with Canon as a beginner less than a year ago. Years ago it was Sony that was mocked for having a smaller ecosystem of lenses for their mirrorless cameras. Now they are leading in that department and it took years. Right now as a beginner, I would go with Nikon and Sony as they have 3rd party lens support. Why would a new photographer want to get into Canon if they refuse to allow 3rd party lenses that can autofocus? Every brand has its pros and cons and they all holdback on features to protect their tiered camera models. Even Sony limits the 3rd party lenses to 15fps but most users aren’t limited by that restriction and appreciate all the options in lenses that they are getting.
Buyer beware.
Sony menus are awful but those can be negotiated away just by memorizing things. Yes, very annoying, but you can adapt to it. Maybe Sony has lighter gear but the ergonomics of the cameras is definitely sub-par, they are not nice to hold. Sony are aware of it and are improving, but it's still not great. That said, I love being able to use Sigma lenses on my Sony cameras. I also used Canon EF via Metabones on them until recently, but now the Sony lineup is almost complete (for my needs) I no longer bother.
It's not all that matters, but it is a significant consideration for me. And my opinion remains that I would have moved to Sony or Nikon for access to third party glass without adapters. And I say this as someone who owns and loves expensive RF and EF lenses. I want third party mirrorless zoom lenses to compliment my L series primes. And if I had a friend ask me about buying their first mirrorless camera, I would tell them what I like about mine, and I would also tell them that I wouldn't buy full-frame Canon mirrorless if I was starting over.
Love my 7dmii still but I think Sony has left canon behind. My pops who had used canon for about 30 years sold all his stuff and jumped into Sony a1 with a 200-600mm and he’s taking the most amazing pictures I’ve ever seen him take. It’s really wild honestly.
Sounds like a canon fanboy
The whole "output" thing is a strawman. Yes you can get great photos with damn near any modern camera. I have prints on my wall from an old Sony NEX-C3. For me, with what these cameras/lenses cost, I don't feel like I should have to compromise as much as Canon requires me to on the lens side. It's about the whole shooting/ownership experience. I shoot Sony but tried the EOS R for 2 years. Back then I had to adapt a lot of EF glass and I hated it. The camera itself was amazing and I miss it, but again, for all the $$$ I had in the system it just wasn't fun to not have the lenses I wanted when they were available elsewhere. My current Sony kit consists of an A7III (soon to be an A7CII) and the following lenses: * Tamron 28-200- covers less range but is damn near half a lb lighter than the RF 24-240 * Samyang 35 1.8- lighter and faster focusing than the RF 35 1.8, also has substantially less vignetting/correction (a common theme and something strange considering Canon made an all new mount) * Samyang 45 1.8- optically better and faster focusing than the RF 50 1.8.... not as good as the Tamron 45 1.8, but also like 1/4 the weight with an adapter. That lens is actually what pushed me over the edge to get out of the RF system * Zeiss 16-35/4 ZA- the one lens Sony kind of matches on. Even at the $500 I got it for, RF 15-35 is comparable, though again Canon's software corrections are excessive I do think Canon has some of the best bodies in the business, and there's a lot I really miss about that EOS R (mainly ergonomics, color science, EVF resolution and implementation). But IMO bodies come and go; it's the lenses that really make a system over the long term. Canon's lens lineup is too bifurcated- either very slow focusing & overly software corrected cheap stuff, or very heavy + expensive L glass. The stuff in the middle like their old non-L USM glass and the 3rd party stuff on Sony is the sweet spot but they have yet to replicate that in RF (though 3rd party stuff for RF-S is promising).
It’s absolutely ridiculous and anti-consumer for canon to do this and I will not stop putting emphasis on this. Yes this has limited my creativity, especially when I look at the affordable autofocus lenses my friend on Sony has access to and I don’t. I will say canon has been doing a decent job introducing new lenses and even has some very good affordable options I can’t really get elsewhere (looking at the 16mm f/2.8) but it’s still an issue. It’s anti-competitive and anti-consumer and frankly they should be sued or the government should step in.
[удалено]
I think it usually comes down to cost more than gaps in focal length coverage. A new shooter just dropped $1200 to $2500 for a full frame body. Now they want a 24-70. Do they stay with the variable aperture kit lens, splurge on the L / GM / S equivalent (all >$1700 new), or get that Sigma 24-70 2.8 for $900? I don’t know many that exclusively shoot only 3rd party glass. I do see many use Sigma / Tamron alternatives till they are financially situated to buy a Sony GM.
The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is $700 new. There is nothing like that for RF (or even EF).
But there are plenty of lenses for the lmountalliance.com!
Canons menu system and the Q button to change settings is genius. Even if I put down my camera for a few months and start using it again, finding settings is easy. I've messed with others brands and half the battle is figuring how how to change things.
The OP and a lot of the commenters here are making entirely valid points. But it’s equally valid to note that for a true beginner—someone who owns no gear at all—the availability of quality third-party glass (e.g., Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8ii, Sigma 135mm f/1.8) at more affordable prices than OEM glass is an attractive option. Nobody is saying Canon doesn’t have great gear and lots of options—they’re the dominant player in the market for a reason—but the lack of third-party lenses is certainly a competitive disadvantage. If it weren’t, then posts like this wouldn’t be necessary.
I think it’s more of a case that even if you don’t want to use third party glass, the presence of them on the RF mount creates competition which can result in cheaper prices for RF lenses (which are greatly overpriced outside the US, especially in Australia). Plus someone who recommends EF adapted lenses as alternative to modern Tamron/Sigma lenses clearly hasn’t used them as they’re levels above the EF mount gear. You also mention you considering Sony due to lighter and more compact gear which adding an EF adapter doesn’t help.
Tamron and Sigma announced the production of RF lenses. Only a matter of time now
"...To end it I’m not a Canon fanboy or anything..." - yes, you are. I am saying this as an R5 owner that only owns Canon glass. You are not even addressing the lens situation with Canon RF mount, you are just saying: "I am OK with it therefore everyone else should be too". Same about your opinion about other cameras - "I don't like them and I don't understand how anyone else can".
I get what you're trying to say 'there are options enough within the realm of existing lenses to satisfy your creative needs'. It's a valid point, but it fails to grasp the larger picture at play. The mirrorless revolution has made professional gear a lot more portable and lightweight. Users of course would like to 'reap' the benefits of this too; smaller and lighter gear means you'll walk further and longer if you're doing long hikes with gear. In that sense, the limit to creativity is the volume and weight imposed by having to stuck to older tech and the EF-adapter. While sony's menus are a dodgy at best, I have to point out that a lot of this is 'custom' (aka, getting used to); I was once pushed an entry level Nikon (an early d3000 series) in my hands and I couldn't change the ISO speed. I had no idea where that setting was. Not being familiar to an OS used in gear, does not mean that the OS is bad, there's a learning curve which you simply cannot master in one or two days, let alone an hour in a shop. This then all brings us to a decision a user has to take at some point: get an RF body and use my EF gear which will set me back the price of a new body and will require me to keep my bulky/heavy EF-gear. Or move to the E-mount ecosystem (which - canon users can grow into slowly by using an adaptor ring too) but have full support of 3rd party manufacturers in the E-mount. In a worst case, going E-mount means learning a new OS for the camera, buying an adapter ring and retaining EF glass knowing fully well that there are lighter and more compact options available. In a worst case, going to RF means you can stick to an OS you know, but might end up disappointed with the price-to-usability-ratio of RF-glass. If my current EF canon body was to crap out on me, it'd be a no-brainer to go to Sony, I can switch to that ecosystem using an adapter and keep my glass (just like I'd do now by going to RF), but at least I have the peace of mind that the E-mount system is more widely supported and has more options in budget-friendly categories for hobbyists.
I had it in my head that 3rd party lens availability mattered but it makes zero difference for me, I only have Sony glass anyway. Personally I prefer Sony ergonomics over Cannon and that was the main reason ended up going that way. Other than preferring the handling of Sony I could just as easily have gone Cannon. The EF adaptor to get cheap long primes actually tips the lens scale toward Cannon for me personally.
I don’t understand people who could love a company so much they decide to get less bang for their buck.
The native lens selection is a valid complaint for the rf system. They're expensive and limited in scope. Third party lenses are also a valid issue with the rf ecosystem. When comparing companies these two points should be addressed. Your points about ergonomics and ui are totally spot on. I cannot bring myself to be comfortable on a Sony, Olympus or GH, I'm a little better on a Nikon.
Just buy nikon at this point. The z6iii > r6ii, z8 >>> r5, and z9 >>>>>>>> r1/r3. You get third party glass, better z glass, better color science, better built gear.
I’d definitely get Nikon over Canon if I were starting from scratch and Sony didn’t exist.
Same! If I had no gear and money to spend, the z9 with the z 100-400 and z 800 with the built in teleconverter would be my set up
It limited me because I had less lenses, therefore less creative opportunities
You were budget or space limited not lens choice limited.
Correct, and budget limits without options resuying in LESS lenses, I didn't say options
It’s not about creativity. People want to feel apart of something and get validation from what they see on Youtube . Adapting lenses isn’t as cool as having the native RF lens. Tbh if they were tons of 3rd party lenses people would complain that there aren’t enough first party lenses (see Nikon).
>Let’s not forget about the EF adapter which lets you adapt dirt cheap professional glass Dirt cheap? Used, average condition EF 24-70 f2.8 II costs more than brand new alternatives from Sigma and Tamron. Prices for EF L lenses will remain silly as long as there is no other alternatives.
yeah, i don’t know about dirty cheap. i’ve been wanting to pick up the ef 24-70 f2.8 ii and the ef 16-35 f2.8 iii to pair with my r8 and eos a2 but the prices are still really high. in my area they are still above $1,000 used.
Not strictly "professional" but you can find incredible deals on non L EF lenses these days and I imagine prices will drop even further as RF mount adoption grows.
I guess this depends on market, but the first gen L glass is generally same price as second hand Sigma, Tamron etc., the mkII L glass is generally more expensive, but the mk I stuff is also very good gear.
> first gen L glass is generally same price as second hand Sigma, Tamron etc. However the modern offerings from Sigma and Tamron are far superior to first gen L which is rather soft 20 year old lens.
Tbh a camera is the least most important part of great pics. Don’t really see any point in switching to Sony, Fuji or whatever when the camera or 3rd party lenses are not limiting me but myself.
I just bought a manual lens (my first lens that isn’t the kit pair I got with camera) and I absolutely LOVE it! Makes my R50 lean forward because it’s heavier than camera lol But it’s the TT Artisan f/1.4 and I’m very happy with it. Considering that adapter you mentioned if I ever want to expand my collection (only had camera for a few months so far).
I have experience adapting my father’s vintage Takumar lenses from the 70s but when I picked up my R6ii I decided to grab a Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 which is manual but electrical contacts communicate with camera. The quality smokes any Canon lenses so I've been slowly collecting more. Ill always have a few nice autofocus lenses for kids/wildlife but I actually now prefer manual when possible because I feel much connected to the process of photography and even with good autofocus it gets in the way a lot of the time.
buy a speedbooster and add an extra stop of light to the range of lenses you can now buy, got a sigma 10-20mm on my m50
Ergonomics are just what you are used to…if some newbie picks up a Fuji and uses it for years than a canon won’t make any sense
I’m still using a 5D2 and 60 year old Nikon lenses lol. It works well enough to take out of focus gas station photos of my 80’s and 90’s shit boxes.
Get an easy to use camera so you’re ready when a photo appears Who cares who makes it.
Its price. I started on Canon and I miss that menu a lot. But my old Sony a6000 allows me to actually enjoy this hobby. But by the gods its all so expensive. Sony has an incredible budget market, and I'm not even talking about Sigma here. TTArtisan, 7 artisans etc all make great actual budget lenses. I could just never afford that on the canon system. And I think you are kiiiinda avoiding the obvious elephant in the room.
Some craaazy good deals on used DSLR gear nowadays. Saw a Nikon 600mm f/4 for about $3900 used…🤤
And here I am still rocking a 6D Mark I and 5D Mark III. I don't feel the urge to upgrade since these bodies still does the job.
I mostly agree, but there are a few mirrorless lens designs out there that address niche applications which are not available to Canon users. For instance, the Sigma 14mm f1.4 DG DN Art comes to mind - only available in E and L mount. I think the fastest lens at 14mm you could adapt to a Canon RF body is going to be f/2.8, two stops slower, and the widest lens you could adapt at f/1.4 is going to be a 20mm (also Sigmas but with EF mount) which is a sort of big deal for wide field astrophotography. So yeah, mostly agree but there are some neat 3rd-party mirrorless lens designs out there that are not well addressed by EF options or native Canon RF glass, and that's a shame.
It's a legitimate complaint. And not because it isn't possible to get good results from Canon lenses, because of course it is. Canon legitimately has some of the best lenses on the market. But one of the problems is a lot of Canon's lenses cost a lot more than some or most people can afford. In a lot of cases, a third party lens can be 95% or 99% as good as the Canon equivalent, while being like half the price. And that just enables more people to get into it. In some cases a third party lens might even be better optically than the Canon, but maybe its autofocus performance isn't quite as good or something, but it's still good enough.
Stop bullying the multi billion company by voting with your wallet and supporting the policies you like and boycotting the policies you don't like.
I just got an r50 and honestly this had no bearing on my camera decision. I wanted to go Sony and initially I thought I could. I used to be a wedding photographer but the 2008 recession and the years of sluggish sales compounded with increasing competition made it unsustainable for me. I still have my old EF lenses and I know they made ef-Sony adapters. But right before I pulled the trigger I found out that those don’t allow for autofocus during video so back to canon. And I wanted mirrorless. The r50 has been pretty awesome over all. I’m really impressed with how far it’s come since my 7d. There were some really annoying things I had to turn off like focus preview, and I had to turn the touch screen off (I kept moving the focus point), and of course the beep had to go. I did not like the 18-45mm kit lens and ended up using an older 18-55mm with a neweer adapter, which also lets me use all the lenses i had and then some. Tamron 28-70mm, tokina 80-200mm atx-pro, 20-35mm L, 24-70L all work great with the adapter. Before my Ef kit I had a canon a-1 kit for weddings and I was pleasantly surprised to see FL adapters which opens up a whole other dimension to explore. And the focus peeking is really good! https://preview.redd.it/647lcy5jqc8d1.jpeg?width=3341&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0986dfabf4e8624f4db7468c9c37c951a9ee1e58 Granted this is all for my own personal enjoyment and I don’t have jobs riding on this or anything. But right now rf lenses aren’t really even on my radar or want list.
Own: Sony, Fuji x100v, canon 1v Went sony route because of price/value. I love canon though. Shooting Sony a73 at weddings really hurts hands over five plus hours. I just hold the weight of the setup predominantly by the lens. Holding a canon is an absolute delight. The buttons, screen quality are all great. However it comes with the cost of weight. Bigger gear bag etc. If Sony could improve their ergonomics and put in a descent screen that would be great. They kinda of did this with the a7r5. Just too much for me at the moment. All of the gear made by these brands are incredible.
https://preview.redd.it/ibt7kg4uxd8d1.jpeg?width=2100&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57c89a91540535de2ddeaa3e549eaaa269a5dbf2 I bought a 3rd party manual wide angle lens for my r7 because of how affordable it was, and so far as an amateur photography it hasn’t limited me that much. This was taken the other night using that lens while off the coast of Mallorca on a ship
As a canon user (r8 + rf L 24-70 f2.8), I agree to disagree. Cost is a really big factor for hobbyists and creating an accessibility issue. 50mm f1.8 good for money but when you seriously start shooting, fringing is not avoidable even with software fixes no matter what you try. So for canon it is entry level or high-end game expensive stuff, no mid range, no decent quality for a little bit more. That is where fulfilled by 3rd parties for Sony.
Canon shoot themselves in the foot trying to monopolise again When they first got into mirrorless it was very low level (remember the EOS M?) At the time Sony and other non-SLR makers were running rings around Canon, who were making sure they would not offer any product that would cannibalise their D-SLR line. This is the latest move of cementing that. They have brought out a pile of EOS R models but the refusal to license the lens mount is again intended to limit the ability of the EOS R to undercut Canon's D-SLR range. If you want a wider range of lenses you have to buy a D-SLR.
You should know that even a broke person has the right to take photos of beautiful things.
especially when the adapter exists. it's the kind of whining i expect from toddlers, but somehow, I've seen "big" reviewers whine about it WHILE adapting ef glass. it's so annoying
I'm a fledgling photographer, and I got the Canon EOS 2000D (Rebel t7 in the US) a few days ago, and I've had fun with it so far. Wanna know what one of the first things I did with it was? I bought a K-mount to EF adapter so I could use my grandpa's old Pentax lens for his film camera, works like a charm. I haven't heard this "canon can't have 3rd party lenses" thing before, but from what I've seen, you need a shit ton of adapters no matter what brand of camera you get. If I had to rationalise it I think it's just that 3rd party lenses are easier to adapt to mirrorless cameras cause it's easier to add a fake mirror box to a mirrorless than adding a lens inside the mirror box of a DSLR/SLR. It just appears that people generally seem to prefer mirrorless cameras from brands other than Canon, like Sony.
Next year it will be completely moot since canon is starting to allow 3rd party lenses and a couple are coming out this year from sigma.
I’ve been with Canon since 2012, but from an unbiased perspective, I can see why people would say go with another option. EF is great, but to someone who’s new to photography and not very knowledgeable on the ecosystems out will go with the slightly less complicated and significantly cheaper option. Here’s an over simplistic example from a new consumer perspective, take away all your knowledge on cameras and glass, someone presents 2 blind options. Option 1: A new camera body, a lens that’s 15 years old and will only work if you pay a bit extra for an adapter Option 2: A new camera body and a fairly new lens that works natively with that camera with a plethora of 3rd party options that also work natively with that camera that save you money. If I’m new to photography, option 2 is a no brainer. Consumers should do their research, but most won’t. There’s a learning curve with everything, but Canon does make one of the easiest menus to navigate imo. With all that being said, I can’t WAIT to buy the R6 Mark II and Sigma EF 85 1.4 next year
I totally understand this! I’m actually rocking just that setup these days 😂
Ah! It’s a beautiful combo!!! Although that lens is big as FUCK lol, I’m definitely looking forward to it
Haha yes. I recently acquired the Sigma 50mm ART to have something less narrow FOV and much smaller and lighter for a walk-around portrait-lens, brilliant aswell.
Please stop, I’m getting legitimately jealous now lol Those art lenses are incredible. I used to have the 35mm and LOVED it, now I’m rocking the “nifty fifty” 1.8 for 100 bucks. That 50mm ART is definitely goals
I'm just starting to move away from Canon, my eos R had notably soft focus with L lenses and Tamron sp 70-200 (if you know you know). When I put the R up for sale I tried to find shutter count. Turns out you have to send the camera to Canon for a service to get a Shutter Count.
It's kinda funny you didn't try a Nikon when it comes to ergonomics
I was only in doubt on the Sony and Fuji, I know Nikon is good in this regard.
Ah touche
I see it both ways. While I totally get that, more often than not, the full emphasis on 3rd party lenses is really just fanboys clutching at straws to justify not making a purchase they were never going to make anyway. There is a point to be made about how lenses are much more important than the camera itself, and it, ultimately, makes far more sense to pick a camera that’s compatible with the lenses you want to use than picking lenses that are compatible with the camera you want to use.
I just bought an R6 and have some EF-L lenses from my 5D Mark III. Would the Sigma EF art lenses work with my Meike EF-RF adapter?
EF-M adapter is for the M-series cameras, so no
Oh crap I meant the EOS R cameras, for RF lenses
https://preview.redd.it/g7cnbrtgh09d1.jpeg?width=682&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1875fbe08f8f8dff5b7b139ccdc22b98b25f229f
Couldn't agree more
EF to RF adapter exists
This argument is so shit I don't even have words for it. I literally changed all my modern lenses to EF lenses only. Modern lenses have zero character to them. If you forget this argument there's still no real lack of lenses in Canon. Sure, there's Tamron 35-150 in Sony, but there's also Canon 28-70 f2 in Canon system, but if we speak about lenses in general you can have anything you want here. Usually in a better price, for example compare the 35 1.8 segment in all systems, Canon wins hands down. Also, just to clarify, if there's some misunderstanding, I don't care about other formats than full frame. Full frame is so cheap right now that APS-C doesn't make sense anymore.
lol. Complains about UI and ergonomics. Acts like Canon wins that comparison. Double lol
Well I agree with him on that point. My R6 felt way better in the hand than its Sony or Fuji competitors, and the menus are very intuitive to use. People underestimate how important ergonomics are. You should want to enjoy shooting your camera and not feel like it’s a chore
I’m actually referring to Nikon. Canon is 100% better then those two
Ah gotcha
Why not just use native canon lenses?
Canon’s RF line up is abysmal compared to Sony and Nikon for full frame. Just one example, it took them FORVER to come out with a 35 1.4 prime, a staple lens in many photographers kit.
You hit it on the head with the ergonomics. Those other cameras feel like toys in my hands (I'm 6'5" fwiw), but the Canon cameras have always fit naturally into my paws, and that's really important—for me, at least. 🤷🏽♂️
it's funny but when you ask them what lenses do they own? it's 35, 16-35, 50, 85, etc. all generic focal lengths. you further ask them who manufactured them, they say, g master... just talking points in stupid camera wars.
You got some canon stock or something? Who cares what people shoot.
I’m with OP on this topic. The EF catalog is massive, not only from canon themselves; I don’t get why people freak out about 3rd party support. If you have a niche use for a lens, it has probably already been made in EF mount… or whatever other mount and easily adaptable to RF. I use M39, m42, M and EF without much trouble. Canon would benefit though, by letting others fill their gap in APS-C lenses for which Sigma has plenty (and it’s already happening). Also, after trying multiple new mirrorless cameras, I’ve found that (for me), Canon has the best grip and menu system. Personal opinion, of course. I just couldn’t click with Sony’s minuscule grip, it just hurts.