Anyone changed their system recently?

[KVH]

Was just wondering if anyone took the leap and jumped completely from one platform to another? I don't mean just buying a different camera but changing out multiple boides, lenses, and everything that goes with all that. Curious as to your reasoning and what happened after, especially any regrets or considerations you only learned after you changed over.

Been shooting Canon since '76 but I've already downgraded my CPS membership to Gold as I'm not 100% sure I understand or like what I currently see of Canon product strategy. And if I have to update everything to R-mount anyway to stay current, I might as well reconsider other brands.

Any other system shooters out there?

 

[inneyeseakay]

I shot Canon since I first got into photography in 03-04, earlier this year, I went from Canon to Sony and it reignited my love for photography.

I had tried Sonys APSC mirrorless years ago and wasn’t a fan of the colors sooc when compared to Canon. But after staring at the Canon mirrorless long enough to get the itch to go mirrorless, I decided to give Sony another try in an effort to save some money.

Idk about saving any more, because Sony glass is a lot more expensive and it depends on what glass you already have for Canon. Since switching, I picked up a Sigma MC-11 adapter to use my Canon glass while I sold it off and slowly acquired native FE mount lenses to replace them.

The adapter works great, but the Canon RF adapter is supposed to work just like a native lens, so… there’s one advantage to Canon RF over Sony.

I went with Sony, because I could pick up a little older body that had IBIS, for around the same price as an entry-level RF body (refurb RP).

I picked up a 900 actuation A7Rii, from a professional who had it as a backup and WOW! I love it! My passion for photography is back, it’s something I really haven’t felt for a while shooting FF DSLR’s and I don’t really know why. I really love using old MF glass that I pick up for mere pennies from thrift stores and pawn shops and mirrorless really lets you excel with those in a way I never could with using a DSLR and I believe that really triggered my artsy side when I first switched. Over the months, I have grown to love the camera more and more.

This is just my experience; obviously, there’s no guarantee yours will be the same.

Honestly, If I had a ton of money wrapped up on amazing EF lenses and the cost of the R5/R6 wasn’t an issue, I would’ve stuck with Canon… but I’m very frugal when it comes to myself. I spoil my wife and kids like crazy, but am extremely stingy when it comes to spending money on myself… so I always have to really justify anything I buy myself and I just couldn’t convince myself that the R5/R6 was worth the cost difference over the A7RII or A7RIII.

That being said, the RF-adapter and EF lens combo is a great alternative to updating everything to RF… and it’s my understanding that the only thing you really give up is weight-savings of mirrorless lenses. Although, it seems like Canon has made all the RF-L glass a tad faster (aperture) than the EF counterpart, so you actually don’t even have much weight-savings.

 

[inneyeseakay]

---

 

[KVH]

I've heard a lot of good things about Sony. And their lens selection seems to indicate they plan to walk-the-walk. I do have an investment in L glass though. I guess maybe I'm a little leary of adapters and this presents me with my biggest prob. Is it all about the bodies or the glass?

My current cameras still capture perfectly. BUT. They are gonna break at some point. One already has (fixed thanks to CPS while doing a job). Then again, I have other bodies most shops won't touch just because they're a few years old (parts availability, etc). I don't have THAT much money to just buy another replacement body if the company won't support it. Which I do worry about with Sony. Hence, my concern buying into a new system.

Maybe I'll just hold my breath for the R1 and keep my fingers crossed?

 

[BigOnDis]

I have been a Nikon shooter since I got interested in Photography about 15 years ago, but I found that I just wasn’t taking the camera with me anymore, not even to Disney. Now we have a grand baby on the way, and I wanted to get a good “simple” camera. Well I went all in and bought a Leica Q2 and now my love of photography has been rekindled. I love not having to worry about which lens am I going to take or packing everything with me, I just grab the camera and go.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I’ve thought about it, but I really don’t want to start all over again. I am interested in a wireless system, though, so I may see if one of the newer Olympus mirrorless models might work for me. I am an Olympus DSLR and mirrorless user from about 2006 I think? I have a lot of cameras and glass, and the glass is excellent. I’d like to still use it. I currently don’t use a laptop, though, and have little interest in getting one. (I happily use an iPad Pro.) So one of these days I might dip my toe in. Hanging out here again might just be the impetus. Ideas welcome if anyone has any thoughts for me (short of changing systems).

 

[PrincessInOz]

Currently shooting with a dSLR Canon.

I've been looking at mirrorless for the last 5 years.

• Sony - keen but no cigar
• Olympus - really keen but still no cigar
• the latest Canon - keen enough to price out what I need for the body and the replacement lenses. YIKES!!!!!!!!

Yeah. Hanging in there with procrastination as my best buddy right now.


(@Pea-n-Me - the full frame mirrorless oly is worth considering. Don't know if the lenses are interchangeable)

 

[KVH]

I think the prices are the problem that have really gotten to me. My 6D died and I now need some kind of replacement. Beyond finding another one NIB, anything else equivalent will cost me twice as much at the least. And then we get back to the argument that it's not just about the body but the lenses. Sometimes I just hate this hobby.

 

[DSLRuser]

I switched from Nikon D750 and f mount lenses to Z7ii and Z mount lenses.

About a $4k hit initially, but glad I made the switch. The D750 and F mount lenses are now with my daughter. I can get them back if I ever need a back up body.

 

[KVH]

Yeah, being in between jobs, holding off making any kind of switch right now. I shudder at the thought of $4k out the door right now when I wouldn't even have given it a second thought a month ago or so.

 

[boBQuincy]

We started with Canon dSLR in 2001, downsized to Rebels years later but got tired of the large cameras/lenses and switched systems to micro 4:3 (Lumix and later Olympus) in 2012. APS-C and full-frame cameras have become smaller but the lenses still have to be the same size as always, 4:3 lenses are half the size.

4:3 image quality was not as good but has made great improvements. Although it will never equal full-frame it is all we need (and then some).

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I'm in the process of switching from Canon EF to Canon RF. I replaced most of my core lenses and now have the RF 15-35mm f/2.8, RF 28-70 f/2, RF 70-200 f/2.8, RF 85 f/1.2 DS, RF 100-500 f/7.1, and RF 50 f/1.8. I still use some of my old EF lenses on an adapter.

The only RF body I own is the R5. It bothers me to have only a single camera body that works with most of my lenses. Normally, I use my older camera bodies as backups, but I don't have any older RF bodies yet. I've been waiting for the R5 Mark II, but that isn't on the horizon yet. I might by an R50. Why two bodies? Sometimes my wife likes to shoot with me, so she uses the second body. Sometimes I shoot video and like a second camera to cover other angles. Sometimes I shoot events and like to have a second camera as a backup.

Going from EF to RF isn't a total system change. I still use the same flashes. The EF lenses work like native lenses with the adapters. Obviously, stuff like tripods, heads, studio lights, filters, and a lot of other stuff is system agnostic, so that hasn't changed.

The lens replacements were very expensive, but many of the lenses they replaced were 20 years old and needed to be retired anyway.

 

[BigOnDis]

I wrote last year in this thread that I bought a Leica Q2 and I still use that for my everyday carry, but after I got back into it, I wanted to be able to switch lenses, so I picked up a Sony A7 RV, I am still working on building out that kit.

 

[KVH]

What a difference a couple of years make. I spent a LOT of time and effort researching what to do. The best choice turned out to be a R6mII with a 14-35L and 100-500L. With the battery grip it's easy to hold and use. Much more happy than I thought I would be. Pricey, yes, but that's what dividends are for.

 

[jec6613]

Starting about a year ago, I started the move from Nikon F (D500, D850, Df) to Nikon Z (Z8, Zf, Zfc so far). I wish I could say that I'm done, but realistically I'm years out (and a lot of missing lenses from any manufacturer) for that to be the case, and the DSLRs get out probably 30% of the time even a year later.

Why? Well, a few reasons:

1. While mirrorless offers a number of advantages, image quality isn't one of them. There are generational differences of course, but the last DSLRs and current mirrorless are basically a wash in terms of image quality.
2. Autofocus is different, things like eye detection make it much easier to make quick grab shots, and the AF sensors are to the edge of the frame. DSLRs require much more supervision and interaction, but AF with more subjects more reliably with their cross-type AF points.
3. If you're used to using the high end lenses, generally things haven't gotten much smaller, and a lot of the nice compact ones haven't come over as native optics yet. The camera itself tends to be thinner and a big smaller, and the lenses lighter, but as I was going through my lens collection for what to take to WDW next week, I pulled out the old F-mount 16-80.

Yes, I could do everything I want photographically I want to do with only mirrorless bodies, but I'm holding off on purchasing more for now and just using my DSLRs when I want a second body. And, fortunately, Nikon didn't go completely off the rails and it's relatively easy to swap back and forth - just the other week I did the dual body shuffle with a 500mm on my Z8 and a 70-200 on my D850.

I figure that 3 years from now and my DSLRs will really only be around for nostalgia purposes, just like my F100 and F5, but that's how it's going for me.

 

[boBQuincy]

Like KVH noted, a few years makes a big difference. Olympus OM-1 may be better than FF for wildlife photography and some other applications. Being able to get photos of what happened a second ago is pretty nice and the lenses are still much smaller/lighter.

 

[KVH]

Starting about a year ago, I started the move from Nikon F (D500, D850, Df) to Nikon Z (Z8, Zf, Zfc so far). I wish I could say that I'm done, but realistically I'm years out (and a lot of missing lenses from any manufacturer) for that to be the case, and the DSLRs get out probably 30% of the time even a year later.

Why? Well, a few reasons:

1. While mirrorless offers a number of advantages, image quality isn't one of them. There are generational differences of course, but the last DSLRs and current mirrorless are basically a wash in terms of image quality.
2. Autofocus is different, things like eye detection make it much easier to make quick grab shots, and the AF sensors are to the edge of the frame. DSLRs require much more supervision and interaction, but AF with more subjects more reliably with their cross-type AF points.
3. If you're used to using the high end lenses, generally things haven't gotten much smaller, and a lot of the nice compact ones haven't come over as native optics yet. The camera itself tends to be thinner and a big smaller, and the lenses lighter, but as I was going through my lens collection for what to take to WDW next week, I pulled out the old F-mount 16-80.

Yes, I could do everything I want photographically I want to do with only mirrorless bodies, but I'm holding off on purchasing more for now and just using my DSLRs when I want a second body. And, fortunately, Nikon didn't go completely off the rails and it's relatively easy to swap back and forth - just the other week I did the dual body shuffle with a 500mm on my Z8 and a 70-200 on my D850.

I figure that 3 years from now and my DSLRs will really only be around for nostalgia purposes, just like my F100 and F5, but that's how it's going for me.

OK. I have to admit sometimes to Nikon envy because they've been so much more consistent about their lens mount strategy than the big C. Since the early 70s I've been through what - maybe 5 different lens mounts? But no regrets, at least until I hang 5 pounds off my shoulder.

But I'm with you, still relying on some older equipment. A film body for HP5 (not happy with my digital B&W work) and a prosumer for the ol' 70-200. The worst part is, within 5-10 years, you know there's gonna be something new on the horizon.

 

[jec6613]

Like KVH noted, a few years makes a big difference. Olympus OM-1 may be better than FF for wildlife photography and some other applications. Being able to get photos of what happened a second ago is pretty nice and the lenses are still much smaller/lighter.

I mean, maybe?

The big advantage of m4/3 used to be that something like a 300mm f/5.6 gives you the field of view of a 600mm lens, and autofocus still works, where a 600mm f/11 (a photographically equivalent lens, FF vs m4/3) wouldn't autofocus on a DSLR. But now with the Canon RF 600mm f/11 being the same size as a 300mm f/5.6, that advantage is wiped out. And with a full frame camera, I still have the option of changing lenses to something you can only do well on full frame, like some ultrawides, very fast optics, and f/2.8 zooms (which would require an f/1.4 zoom on m4/3). And bodies like the Z8 offer feature equivalence to an OM-1 (at least in DX crop mode).

Of course, there's the cost to consider, that's a big slab of silicon, and that for small portable lenses as opposed to big telephotos, even the smallest full frame lenses tend to be much larger than equivalent m4/3 (an f/5.6 FF zoom vs an f/2.8 m4/3 zoom, for instance) because of the requirements of the physical mount and so on - something that's not an issue with larger telephotos. It's why I keep my old Nikon 1 equipment around, the full package is super tiny (that and it being nearly worthless to sell, of course).