What made you switch to Canon RF mirrorless?

[RandyHanner]

I switched to the R6 from a 7D mkii for several reasons. One I couldn’t justify to the wife the cost of a 1DX mkiii. 2 I figured Canon was going to put everything into mirrorless and it would be more cost effective to be able to use my EF lenses on a R series and 3 because of the speed of the fps while shooting football and dancing.

 

[Only RF]

I switched to the R6 from a 7D mkii for several reasons. One I couldn’t justify to the wife the cost of a 1DX mkiii. 2 I figured Canon was going to put everything into mirrorless and it would be more cost effective to be able to use my EF lenses on a R series and 3 because of the speed of the fps while shooting football and dancing.

I sure wish I had the extra play money to have gotten into the 1DX line and R3. My wife has been great and behind my hobby but it is not her hobby so I draw the line. I never liked camera grips so I may have not like the size of those beasts. I may have adjusted after experiencing the AF performance. Like all ML's the R3 is smaller so better for me but until the lottery kicks in I doubt I'll see one.

 

[pcassel]

Many years ago I did some pro work under contract using a 4x5, 6x7 and a Nikon SLR dream setup. When I returned to Colorado, I had to return all the company’s equipment. I went to a Denver camera store determined to start buying what I’d had in that Nikon kit but blanched at what the cost would be.


The salesman had a Canon FTb (IIRC) which, along with a nifty 50 was well within my price range. From then on until the early 2000s, I did the usual upgrading sticking with Canon because I didn’t want to rebuy all my lenses and accessories. Curiously, starting in the mid 1990s, I used Photoshop but not for photography. The digital cameras of the 90s didn’t lure me away from film.


When Canon came out with the 10D the combination of that digital with PS caused my imagination to soar so I grumpily, and IMO, at a huge loss, sold all my film equipment and went digital. I sometimes play with the idea of buying another F1 but the feeling fades because w/o a darkroom, what’s the point (at least to me)?


I ended up with a 5D2 and now being a pure amateur who sold only at shows, I was stuck there seeing nothing that Canon was doing that interested me in an upgrade. Canon’s love fest with video is one I don’t share and IMO, it played at that while rival manufacturers such as Nikon or Sony passed it by but being an amateur, saw no reason to change brands. I never understood or saw the point of any AF because all my snapping was still – mostly landscapes. Living as I was in New Mexico, what landscape to shoot amounts to wherever you are. Setup. Wait for the light. Snap once and that’s it. But we moved and while I did some work here this isn’t a place to do landscapes if I want more than 10 shutter activations a year.


Through some odd luck an R10 with the 18-45 (?) kit lens fell into my lap for a few weeks. What a revelation!! Suddenly I can’t see living without AF because it not only works, it works with moving things. I had no idea how much tech changed from my 5D2 (2008?) and now. I ended up getting an R7 with the 18-150 kit because I wanted the sensor shutter, IBIS and the added res. I’m glad for the upgrade but likely would have been happy with just that R10 but the 18-150 lens instead of the little one.


I got a little GASsed and so ended up with inexpensive wildlife glass and thinking macro is all around me bought the 100mm RF 2.8. I found out I have miles to go to produce decent macro or wildlife. Owell. Learning should be for a lifetime.

 

[CrashPC_cz]

Heya. It seems that many users share the same experience. AF performance, ergonomics, UI and LiveView performance. Cannot agree more. Canon started to nail it around 70D/SL1 and even EOS M except for AF on M, and only got better in time. Have hard times with Canon portfolio lately, bud damn this is hard to sacrifice for other brands. So I am looking around what to do about my needs of 30Mpx+ compact IBIS abled body.

 

[Cxizent]

Just to buck the trend, I started out with Canon because I decided to make a YouTube channel and got sick of shooting video on my phone. And what camera did every YouTuber use and recommend for a hot minute: the Canon M50! It was great for video - good autofocus, and the kit lens performed decently in low-ish light environments (I was mostly filming inside a workshop). I actually didn't like the small size of it and ended up buying a cage just to hold it more easily.

At some point I went along on a photo trip out to the middle of the bush with some friends and one of them showed me astrophotography, and I was amazed! I started to realise that for photos, my tiny little M50 was just the tip of the iceberg for what was available.

I got the R6 with the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L and the RF 50mm f/1.8 and good god, I am still so impressed with this camera! I went with the R6 over the R5 due to wanting to mainly use it for video - the overheating problem was less pronounced, and the higher MP didn't really make 4k video look any better (I'm sure there are pixel-peepers who disagree), and of course the better low-light performance made astro photos and indoor video much easier!

I've tried a friend's Nikon DSLR recently that only reinforced my choices - to echo the sentiment of someone earlier in this thread, I'm sure that I could have learned their menu system, but I did NOT speak that language! Canon's menu system and articulating touchscreens are stupid good, and the ergonomics of the R6 are excellent - even for someone with long spindly fingers

I can't stop looking at pretty new lenses though - I'm talking myself into buying the 24-105mm f/4L... and maybe a macro lens, who knows?

 

[Bear]

Glad to hear you’re enjoying your Canon R6 and, should you go with the RF 24-105mm lens I think you’ll like it even at f4. Great lens. Unlike you though, I keep looking at those “pretty” Canon lenses and my bank account shows it. So many great Canon lenses to explore.

 

[OpusElenae]

I had a similar entry to Cxizent (we were friends before this forum; thanks for the invite, mate!), but I actually used to shoot Sony. In college and just after I had a couple Sony alpha DSLRs, but after my kiddo got mobile I found myself taking fewer and fewer pictures. Then along came YouTube, and the camera I had wasn’t making the grade for video, so I traded it in for an m50 kit and another lens. I started wanting to take more pictures and also have a better camera for both video and photo, so I saved for an R6ii, which I’m really enjoying. I still use the m50 for a b-camera, but will likely replace that with an R10 in the next year or two.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I was firmly against going mirrorless. I was shooting a Pentax K50 and a Canon T3. My skills started progressing and I started thinking about going semi-pro. I wanted to get a Pentax K3 Mark 3, but the Pentax autofocus issues were making me hesitate. I picked up an R6 in Best Buy to play around with it and “see what the hype is all about”. I ordered an R6 Mark 2 a day later and haven’t looked back. Now I’m doing pro work, advancing my skills, with the camera and with post processing, learning, loving it, and wincing at the cost of being in the RF ecosystem. It’s expensive but those Canon colors and eye AF…

 

[lostnomore]

I was firmly against going mirrorless. I was shooting a Pentax K50 and a Canon T3. My skills started progressing and I started thinking about going semi-pro. I wanted to get a Pentax K3 Mark 3, but the Pentax autofocus issues were making me hesitate. I picked up an R6 in Best Buy to play around with it and “see what the hype is all about”. I ordered an R6 Mark 2 a day later and haven’t looked back. Now I’m doing pro work, advancing my skills, with the camera and with post processing, learning, loving it, and wincing at the cost of being in the RF ecosystem. It’s expensive but those Canon colors and eye AF…

It's interesting how you mention Pentax. My first DSLR was a K20D because it was more affordable than Canon and Nikon offerings. Pentax also had IBIS and weathersealing even at low price-points. But oh, that AF -- you couldn't rely on it to save your life!!! So after about 7 years it was 'goodbye' to Pentax and then 6 years of owning the Nikon D750 before switching to Canon mirrorless with the R6. The D750 blew any Pentax AF system out of the water and the R6 has done with same with the D750!! Yes, the RF ecosystem is expensive, but for jaw-dropping AF capabilities (among many other advantages over DSLRs), I hate to say, but it's worth it.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

It's interesting how you mention Pentax. My first DSLR was a K20D because it was more affordable than Canon and Nikon offerings. Pentax also had IBIS and weathersealing even at low price-points. But oh, that AF -- you couldn't rely on it to save your life!!! So after about 7 years it was 'goodbye' to Pentax and then 6 years of owning the Nikon D750 before switching to Canon mirrorless with the R6. The D750 blew any Pentax AF system out of the water and the R6 has done with same with the D750!! Yes, the RF ecosystem is expensive, but for jaw-dropping AF capabilities (among many other advantages over DSLRs), I hate to say, but it's worth it.

Pentax has a lot of good going for them. Their ergos are good. Their cameras are built like tanks. They prove that weather sealing doesn’t have to be a premium addition, and the colors their sensors (I believe some are Sony mfg.) produce are very good. I’ve heard the K3 Mark 3 really improved their autofocus, but I don’t see them succeeding as a DSLR company in a mirrorless world. Ricoh Imaging has the capabilities to produce magnificent mirrorless cameras, I think they need to accept that mirrorless has taken over and move on with it. I’d be interested to see what they can do.

 

[pcassel]

I can't see Pentax prospering in the MILC world because the resources needed to compete against Canon and Sony are enormous. Sony just introduced a high end 35 mm form MILC with a global shutter. Canon will almost surely have an answer in the R1 and likely the R5II Real Soon Now. Even Nikon seems to be flagging in the halo race being run by those two.

What could Pentax introduce in a MILC that would convince anybody to invest in its system over those two or even Nikon?

 

[Philnick]

I started with black and white photography and a home darkroom when I was in elementary school in 1958, carrying around a Kodak Retina folding camera with a tiny rangefinder I could put in its flash shoe, and a tiny light meter I could put into a second flash shoe I'd epoxied on top of the rangefinder.

Carried that assemblage around in my pockets in high school 'till I got my Canon FT-QL 35mm SLR with an FL stop-down metering lens mount as I graduated in 1968. Put an 85mm f/1.8 lens on it in college and while I added a few other lenses over the years (FL and FD lenses became inexpensive with the popularity of the EF mount), the 85mm saw the way I saw. That was my basic rig for 38 years until I went digital in 2006 after seeing how good it had become from shots from my wife's little point and shoot.

Got a Digital Rebel XT with an EF-S 15-85mm, then moved to the XTi with the glorious EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. Got the T4i for its pioneering "scattered dual-pixel sites" experiment, upgraded to the "full dual-pixel" 70D and then 80D -- and then became intrigued by being able to see what my exposure looked like in the electronic viewfinder of my pocket Powershot G5X.

So I started looking for something like that in a camera that could use my EF-S lenses and got the R7 last summer.

After seeing my DSLRs get bigger and heavier with every upgrade, I was surprised and delighted to once again have a camera as small and light as my old film SLR while more capable than any camera I'd ever had.

As a 38-year 35mm SLR shooter, it's no small thing that I can make the R7 feel like home: it lets me set my f/stop on the lens with the Control Ring, my shutter speed with the main dial on the top deck, and "change the film" by setting the ISO with the ring around the joystick. Instead of a match-needle in the viewfinder I have real-time red, green, and blue histograms in a viewfinder that gets brighter and darker with changes in my exposure setting. I run in Manual exposure mode like I did with my FT-QL. I can even slide the focus point with my thumb on the rear screen while looking through the viewfinder. This setup is retro- and future-facing at the same time.

And the R7's high-resolution sensor lets me use sharp primes as if they were zooms simply by cropping my RAW files in post. (See the butterfly shots in the gallery linked below - all of which are deep crops from shots taken with my RF 85mm f/2.)

I've traded in my RF 70-200mm f/4L for a 27 year-old EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM which the R7's IBIS makes fully hand-holdable, even with the EF 1.4x III extender, giving me a faster and sharper lens for concerts without the extender, and a longer lens for birding with it.

I'm also trading in my EF-S 10-18mm for credit towards for the much smaller and lighter RF-S 10-18mm, which will be one of only two zooms remaining in my kit - the other being my EF-S 18-135 with the power zoom attachment - for shooting the occasional video. I'm torn over whether to sell or keep my RF 16mm f/2.8. (The kit RF 18-150mm was serviceable until I built my collection of RF primes, but it's now in mothballs.)

Before going mirrorless, I used my camera mainly on summer vacations. Now I'm taking pix several times a week. You can check out my stuff at Photos.PhilOlenick.com. The first three galleries were taken with my DSLRs. The later galleries are all from my R7.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I can't see Pentax prospering in the MILC world because the resources needed to compete against Canon and Sony are enormous. Sony just introduced a high end 35 mm form MILC with a global shutter. Canon will almost surely have an answer in the R1 and likely the R5II Real Soon Now. Even Nikon seems to be flagging in the halo race being run by those two.

What could Pentax introduce in a MILC that would convince anybody to invest in its system over those two or even Nikon?

The same could probably be said for LUMIX and OM Systems, but they’re going strong. Look at Fuji with their majority APS-C sensor format cameras, they’re going strong. Ricoh could definitely build up Pentax into a mirrorless competitor, if they wanted to. I think to do that they’d have to seriously consider joining the L mount alliance for lens availability and perhaps offering MFT and FF format cameras. Pentax needs to stay in the niche market, and appealing to the adventure/wildlife community with MFT cameras wouldn’t be a terrible idea.

 

[J.Q.]

In analogue times I used Canon (FD and EF) and Contax. Made the switch to digital with the Nikon D700. Had several Nikons after that und switched to mirrorless with the Z6 (and Z6II). Never been satisfied with the AF on the Z6(II) and changed to Sony. Although the AF is brilliant and the lenses very sharp and compact, I never really got to like the system. Especially the Sony colors put me off. Didn't like the Nikon colors too much either. So the reason for my switch to Canon is the beautiful default colors mainly. I also like the affordable and quite compact lenses (24/35/50/85). The AF on the R5 is ok and the sensor (though somewhat outdated) produces beautiful pictures that need less post-processing (color-wise) than the files from the Sonys. Also the ergonomics on the R5 are quite good and the menu far more comprehensible and accessible than Sony's.

 

[Archibald]

Interesting thread. I share many of the thoughts and opinions. I was against mirrorless because the earlier models had AF that was too slow for BIF. But then the R5 came along. I bought it because it was small and lightweight, plus it had eye AF and great reach due to its high pixel density. It was an FF that could replace my crop 7D2 and still shoot FF when needed. Then the R7 came out with even greater px density and I bought it. The R7 would actually be all I need except there are no crop pro-level lenses for it. So I'm keeping the R5 and its wonderful RF 24-105mm L lens for people photography and other general work (stuff other than wildlife and macro).

 

[miuzi]

Seems like this long-dormant thread woke back up today, so I figure I may as well chime in.

Prior to buying my R8, I had a Nikon D7000 for almost 9 years, and I loved it. It fit my hands, and I created so many photos that I really loved. I had never really considered switching over to mirrorless, because any mirrorless camera I'd tried, like low-level Sony bodies, underwhelmed massively. However, a little under a year ago, I started using a Nikon Z50 for work, and was really wowed by how much more complete it felt compared to any mirrorless I'd tried before. It reinvigorated my interest in photography as a hobby, and I started checking out what was on the market. Because of the switch to mirrorless and the fact that I hadn't sunk any money into my Nikon system in a while, I was open to switching to another brand. The main things I was looking for were a smaller/lighter body and, if possible with that stipulation, a full-frame sensor. I have small children now, and wanted a camera that I could more easily just toss in a bag with other stuff, or let hang on my shoulder without worrying about concussing one of them while we're out and about. I was intrigued by the RP for its form factor and full-frame sensor, and very nearly decided to buy one, when Canon announced the R8, and I was very quickly sold on it and preordered one. The most appealing things aside from the form factor shared with the RP were the subject recognition, particularly for people as well as cars and aircraft, and the electronic shutter for both the frame rate possibilities and the completely silent shooting, which is amazing for candid photos of kids.

Contrary to the reputation (and, I'd concede, the reality at the higher end of the market) for Canon RF lenses being expensive, one of the first things that drew me towards Canon was the affordability of a lot of the non-L series RF lenses. There is nothing even close to the RF 50mm STM that I started out with for under $200CDN from Nikon. I acquired that lens, and then the 24-105 and 100-400, all together, for under $1500CDN, and I feel like I'm ready to shoot almost anything I'd ever want to. Looking at Nikon's full-frame offerings in the same price range, they weren't at all attractive to me. With the R8 and the 50mm I started with, I had a brand new body and lens that combined weighed less than my old D7000 body, were way faster, had far superior autofocus with subject recognition, and a full-frame sensor. The things I lost from my D7000 - weather sealing, the far superior battery life, and dual card slots - were worth the sacrifice for now having such a modern body. The leap from the D7000 to the R8 felt transformative, and was really creatively inspiring. I'm constantly looking for reasons to get my camera out. I have never had any professional aspirations for my photography, it's just a hobby that I derive a lot of joy from, and the R8 feels about as perfect as I think a camera could for my needs.

 

[Tappa]

I've been into photography for many years as I'm nearing 75 years young. I started back in the 60's with a Sears SLR made by Richo I believe. I finally decided to go with a Nikon that had automatic exposure modes. After years of shooting the Nikon, I saw a photographer in the paper that was selling a complete Canon Kit with several lenses and a film SLR. Several years later the digital bodies had gotten fairly good so I retired the film body and bought a Canon 30D body to use with the lenses I had. I've stayed with Canon ever since. From 30D to 50D to 7D to 1Dmk4 to 1DX to R5. The biggest factor in my purchase of the R5 was that my 1DX body failed and there was no repair parts available so I was in the market for a new body. I had been reading about the mirrorless camera and since my interest is in nature, wildlife, bird photography, it made sense to go with the R5. I Currently adapt lenses to it that I have on hand, 100mm L macro, 24-70 1-L and Sigma 60-600mm. Someday I will purchase some R lenses but now I satisfied with the results I'm getting.

 

[StevenAunan]

I've been a photographer since high school, when I bought a Petri 35mm and borrowed my dad's Pentax 50mm lens. I spent my corporate years with inexpensive gear because it didn't matter. Then I retired and got a Canon M6, followed quickly by the best camera I'd ever owned to date: the Canon 7D Mark II. The R7 came out six months later. I needed better video capability, the autofocus and electronic shutter blew my mind, so I immediately jumped to the R series. Then I needed better low light performance, so now I also have the R6 ... and I may be trading up to the R5 Mark II when it comes out.

BUT .... Sony's new Global Shutter sounds absolutely incredible. I'm not switching brands, but I am wondering if the new R3 or R1 models will have that ... Somebody Stop Me!

 

[lostnomore]

Pentax has a lot of good going for them. Their ergos are good. Their cameras are built like tanks. They prove that weather sealing doesn’t have to be a premium addition, and the colors their sensors (I believe some are Sony mfg.) produce are very good. I’ve heard the K3 Mark 3 really improved their autofocus, but I don’t see them succeeding as a DSLR company in a mirrorless world. Ricoh Imaging has the capabilities to produce magnificent mirrorless cameras, I think they need to accept that mirrorless has taken over and move on with it. I’d be interested to see what they can do.

I agree with everything you pointed out, but in addition to their AF lagging behind the competition, Pentax/Ricoh is always behind the times, often by several years. It took them many years, for example, before they even released their first FF DSLR (before which I left them for Nikon). I don't think it's too late for them to enter mirrorless and yes, they produce great cameras, I just think even their market share won't even hold a candle to the Big 3 (Canon-Nikon-Sony). They just don't have the money and market share to compete at this level of innovation and speed.

 

[lostnomore]

I can't see Pentax prospering in the MILC world because the resources needed to compete against Canon and Sony are enormous. Sony just introduced a high end 35 mm form MILC with a global shutter. Canon will almost surely have an answer in the R1 and likely the R5II Real Soon Now. Even Nikon seems to be flagging in the halo race being run by those two.

What could Pentax introduce in a MILC that would convince anybody to invest in its system over those two or even Nikon?

Absolutely agreed! Back in my Pentax days on my favorite forum, there were people leaving weekly for the competition. The AF was crushing that of Pentax. Also, Pentax took what seemed forever to finally release a FF DSLR. By then, many had abandoned the "S.S. Pentax." I can only wonder how few are left?

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

If Pentax wants to be relevant in the mirrorless market, which I don’t think they do, they need something truly innovative and they need to push it toward the adventure crowd. OM Systems does a great job with that. If Pentax (or anyone) came up with an interchangeable lens camera that was at least 12 mp, in a 1 inch sensor that produced excellent image quality, handled noise well, and was well built, weather sealed, and light/small, they’d attract some folks.

As an example I’ve been thinking of adding a crop sensor mirrorless camera to my bag and I am giving a hard look at OM Systems and Lumix. I see what those cameras are putting out and I don’t see a reason for a bigger unit on an APS-C size sensor. I’d be happy with FF and MFT. I have to imagine the same tech could be successfully applied to a smaller sensor within its own limits.

 

[Dcweather]

Much like you I was a Nikon shooter, shooting wildlife almost exclusively. A pair of D500's were my primaries with a D750 as my main for everything else. I bought a Z6ii in May 2021 planning to transition to it from the D750 and was impressed though the AF tracking lagged somewhat. Over Memorial Day I visited a Canon pro shooter who had been trying to get me to switch for 5 years. He handed me an R5 with 100-500mm and I was dumbfounded. He allowed me to shoot with it for a weekend and I immediately started the Nikon sell-off. I missed the reach of the DX D500 w 500mm, but the number of keepers I'd get and the accuracy of the AF was amazing.

I have no regrets, but seeing things like the 800mm Z PF released have given me pause. But I'd rather have the 100-500mm RF than the 100-400mm Z any day of the week, and with the R7 I get the reach - I just wish it had come in at $500 higher with a buffer and processor that can manage the AF system. That would have been an amazing wildlife camera. Maybe the R7ii?

I'm with you Jake as you've probably gathered from our other posts that have crossed. There are some differences though. My Nikon D500 (I still haven't sold it) is the best camera I ever had, But when I was out birding my mate (he is a lot younger that might be a factor) if something popped up he was on it and focused in an instant with his 7Dmkii and EF100-400 ii lens. Under normal circumstances his shots looked sharper than my D500 + 150-600mm .
So when I realised that DSLR's were unlikely to improve and finding the weight of my Nikon +Sigma was becoming an issue I decided to swap. I have to say my research was quite early on so I fell a bit for the hype from Canon and early reviewers about the AF on the R7. That aspect has been a big regret and the rolling shutter though I have learnt to avoid that. I wished I could have justified the R5 in a way. But with the RF100-400 and 600mm F11 RF I have got the weight reduction and some excellent shots. My thoughts now are to get the R8 for the AF improvements for now and try out the 100-500 mm RF on test drive. Then wait for developments in the next year or so. Clearly an R7mk2 would solve almost everything for us birders and with a number of issues it must be a candidate from Canon and they would absolutely clean up if it came out about £4-500 above current model.

 

[Philnick]

Since 1968, when I graduated high school, I shot with a Canon FT QL, an FL-mount camera that was manual focus with microprism on the ground-glass, spot-metering stopped down, and the ability to load a roll of 35mm film running down the street with its hinged inner flap to hold down the tounge of the film.

Went digital in 2005 with a Rebel XT, then the XTi a month later, then the T4i with the first scattered dual pixels on the sensor, then the 70D - learned how to do MicroAutoFocus calibration, then the 80D.

Along the line I picked up a Powershot G5X, a pocket camera that thinks it's a DSLR - but I now realize really was a proto-mirrorless. Fell in love with the EVF, which liberated me from auto-exposure, and started me pining for a successor to my 80D which would have an EVF.

Didn't want to go full-frame since I had several well-loved EF-S lenses, including the 17-55mm f/2.8.

Then the R7 came out. Has a great EVF and is better in every way than my 80D. Can't understand the hate it gets. No battery grip? So what? I never used the one I had for the 70D and 80D. The Control Ring gave me back the f/stop ring I had on my FL lenses, I can set shutter speed on the top deck and it feels like my old FT. I can "change film" by setting ISO with the ring around the joystick next to the viewfinder. I use AF On to trigger eye-AF and * to trigger spot AF. Playback can be turned on with the MF button on the top deck., since I have direct control of all three corners of the exposure triangle all the time. I can drag the focus point around with my thumb on the rear display - and this body is as small - and lighter - than my old FT. No micro AF calibration needed any more.

Unlike my big and heavy DSLRs, which I mainly used on vacation, the R7 is used all the time. It's given my hobby a rebirth.

I have a few RF lenses, like the 28mm pancake (my 45mm equivalent "normal" lens), the 85mm f/2 macro, and the 16mm, but I've bought as many EF lenses recently - the 200mm f/2.8L II and the 24-70mm f/2.8L, and the 50mm f/1.4 - the R7's IBIS makes those ultra-sharp old lenses perfectly hand-holdable even though they don't have optical IS - and with the Control Ring adapter even they have f/stop rings! And I've held onto the EF-S 18-135mm USM power-zoomable lens (I have that adapter!) in case I want to shoot a video - which I haven't done in years. Recently picked up the Tokina EF 11-20 - which is a crop-sensor lens.

About the only thing I envy in the full-frame bodies is lower noise at high ISOs, but the high pixel density of the R7 lets me do deep crops that not even the R5 can match. So I just buy fast lenses - none are slower than f/2.8

You can see my work at photos.philolenick.com - the first three galleries were shot with various Canon DSLRs, the newer galleries were all shot with my R7. The butterfly and birds in flight shots are all deep crops that the R7's 32.5mp sensor makes possible.

 

[pcassel]

I have both the R7 and R6ii. I feel the only area the R7 falls behind in is noise. There is a significant difference in image noise once the ISO hits 3200 or so. I've never studied it. IIRC, DPreview had, as part of the R6ii review the ability to compare noise between the two cameras which confirmed what I saw. I have no idea if the R7ii will address noise. If it does, it'll be THE camera to use, IMO.

 

[Philnick]

I have both the R7 and R6ii. I feel the only area the R7 falls behind in is noise. There is a significant difference in image noise once the ISO hits 3200 or so. I've never studied it. IIRC, DPreview had, as part of the R6ii review the ability to compare noise between the two cameras which confirmed what I saw. I have no idea if the R7ii will address noise. If it does, it'll be THE camera to use, IMO.

I try to keep ISO at around 400 to minimize the need for noise reduction.

 

[Dcweather]

I try to keep ISO at around 500 to minimize the need for noise reduction.

..... which is near impossible most of the time in the UK with only reasonably priced long lenses being F7.1 - F11. But we have learned the wonders of modern AI denoise software.

 

[MrSparks999]

Better a noisy shot than no shot at all

 

[Philnick]

My "long lens" is my EF 200mm f/2.8 L II, with the EF 1.4 teleconverter, for an effective 280mm f/4. That 200 f/2.8L II cost me about $500 used (not refurbed). The teleconverter wasn't very expensive either. The R7's IBIS makes that a hand-holdable combo, which is much faster than the RF 100-400 f/5.6-8, which is approaching f/8 once you get into that neighborhood - that two stops wider means four times the light.

If you look at the birds in flight seagull shots at my photo site linked below, the shots early in that gallery were taken with the 100-400, which I returned, while the ones at the end, which are much better closeups with motion better frozen, were taken with the 280mm f/4 teleconverted rig. Better max aperture means better motion stopping and lower ISO. The high pixel density of the R7 let me crop in on that much further, for the effect of a much longer focal length.

 

[ctitanic]

Well, believe it or not, I just got a 5D Mark III. Probably because I'm missing the feeling of shooting with a DSLR. Most of my lens are EF glass so it makes sense to me getting a EF camera as a backup camera and the 5D Mark III is a classic that you can get now for very good price.

 

[border guy]

AF tracking and lens choice for me. I had the Nikon D500 and the D750 which are both great cameras, my main lens for wildlife was the Tamron 150-600 G2 but in my old age I was finding the combination hard to hold steady as it was quite a heavy set-up. One day I bumped into a fellow photographer friend who had converted from Nikon to Canon, he had opted for the R5 and RF 100-500 lens and I asked him if would he be kind enough to let me take a couple of shots with his new toy which he did, That was it I was hooked! Couldn't afford the R5 so I opted for the R62 and RF 100-500 and I've never looked back. Just bought the RP with the RF 24-105 lens for my railway photography which I have yet to try out.