Betwixt and Between

[Shergar]

The gear bag I hump around :- 5yr old Canon 7Dmkii with a 15yr old L100-400.  4yr old 6D with a 13yr old L24-70 2.8 . The 100-400 has been repaired many times and the repairs have cost more than the lens did in the first place. the L24-70 has also been repaired many times. The 7Dmkii has 100,000s of clicks on it.

 

Now the 6D is causing problems and Im looking at anything between $250 and $400 to fix it. Canon repair costs have gone nuts.

 

I shoot sport, wildlife, landscape and any stock I can think of.

 

 Because of my glass I have been tied to Canon for many years. 

 

 Im thinking of replacing the 6D with the Sony rx100 vii so will have a small walk about camera for a change that's up to date and will cover everything that the old 6D 24-70 did and more. Then when the 7D and the 100-400 give up the ghost replacing them with another Sony. Or do I just repair the 6D or buy another Canon.  Im  betwixt and between.

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated .....

 

Thanks 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Shergar

[MDM]

Don't rule out Nikon. They have now jumped into the mirrorless market and will only get better. Prices are very competitive with Sony offerings and the mirrorless Nikons are compatible with most older Nikon lenses with an adapter. The Z6 or Z7 with the 24-70 f4 is a really light combo for general photography. The lens is super sharp and the image quality amazing. They are not ideal as sports cameras though as the AF tracking is not brilliant but otherwise they are superb. 

 

Nikon are still producing some amazing DSLRs as well - the D850 is the best camera ever made in my opinion and can do just about anything and everyrthing. They are more than adequate for action photography - tracking a running dog or horse is no problem with the right lens. They have come down in price a lot as well and are incredibly good value.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by MDM

[MizBrown]

52 minutes ago, Shergar said:

The gear bag I hump around :- 5yr old Canon 7Dmkii with a 15yr old L100-400.  4yr old 6D with a 13yr old L24-70 2.8 . The 100-400 has been repaired many times and the repairs have cost more than the lens did in the first place. the L24-70 has also been repaired many times. The 7Dmkii has 100,000s of clicks on it.

 

Now the 6D is causing problems and Im looking at anything between $250 and $400 to fix it. Canon repair costs have gone nuts.

 

I shoot sport, wildlife, landscape and any stock I can think of.

 

 Because of my glass I have been tied to Canon for many years. 

 

 Im thinking of replacing the 6D with the Sony rx100 vii so will have a small walk about camera for a change that's up to date and will cover everything that the old 6D 24-70 did and more. Then when the 7D and the 100-400 give up the ghost replacing them with another Sony. Or do I just repair the 6D or buy another Canon.  Im  betwixt and between.

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated .....

 

Thanks 

 

My thinking is that either people keep stuff until it functionally dies or sell it on after three years so the next buyer is likely to get some value for the purchase.  Switching systems is expensive to do unless your current lenses are dead and you'd have to replace them with something anyway.   It's not just the cost, but the getting used to a new system.  

 

My small camera isn't as small as the rs100## series, but is small enough to be less conspicuous on the street.   I'm a Sony mirrorless user with four lenses for APSC and three for full frame and two adapted manual focus lenses that can go with either.

[Inchiquin]

I have a similar dilemma. My 5D2 and 24-105 are ten years old now - and my shoulders are ten years older! But I don't have a big budget so I can't afford to make a mistake if I replace them. I tried an X-T1 a few years ago but didn't like it. I also bought a NEX6 and although I've found it useful as a pocket camera the quality isn't as good as the 5D2 for Alamy purposes so it's been underused and I'm about to sell it. I would like to do more video but the 5D2 is showing its age and I would really like to get better video quality.

 

I've eyed up the Sony A7ii, mainly for the video, but it would require changing all my lenses. I've also considered the Canon R, but it can't do 4k in full frame and although I only do HD video at the moment I might want 4k in the future. I was able the other day to briefly try a friend's R at a bonfire party but I just couldn't get it to focus in low light whereas my 5D2 did so without any problems. That may or course simply be down to my unfamiliarity with the camera, but the last thing I need is a camera with temperamental focusing. I've had those before and torn my hair out over it.

 

So I continue to put my shoulders to the test with my present gear until I find the right solution. Maybe wait for the R2?

 

Alan

[Allan Bell]

I jumped from Canon to Nikon then pretty quickly jumped again to Sony. Just for personal reasons as the Nikon D750 was/is an excellent body and good lenses too.

 

When I moved to Sony it was because they are well ahead in the mirrorless game and now have a great range of lenses as well as bodies.

 

Allan

 

[Shergar]

Boy what a nightmare it is. So many choices! The last time I did this I was buying glass for a Canon 300D,  very little choice back then. Why do these camera companies make all the models sound alike? Im not so interested in having the latest video I fear that could lead to major computer upgrades, heaven forbid. Canon seems to have slipped behind a bit over the years and I have been repairing cameras because I have glass and repairing glass because I have cameras . I have not kept up very well with other developments as I have always thought the only time I need to know anything about cameras is when I have needed to buy one and that has always been replacing  one canon model for the next. Times have changed!!!  I think Im going to stick between Nikon and Sony, adding anything else could fry the little brain that's left.

 

Appreciate all and any help

 

Best 

 

Shergar (completely lost once again) 

[MDM]

It all comes down to intended and potential usage as well as what you are intending to spend. Horses for courses and all that.  Here are a few thoughts.

 

Word on the street is that the DSLR's days are numbered but not for some years to come. Probably the biggest attraction of mirrorless cameras is the body size but that is literally outweighed by the size of the lens. If you are going to stick a big telephoto on a tiny body, then you lose that weight advantage obviously. So when I use a biggish telephoto it is on a DSLR and it is very happy on there.

 

I can't speak for Sony although they have many advocates and evangelists. I am embedded in Nikon but happy to be there and that they have finally taken the big step forward into mirrorless as it guarantees their future. The first mirrorless offerings are not perfect but they are exceptionally good in many ways, not least in terms of image quality.. 

 

But for a really high quality carry round camera, the Z7 with the 24-70 F4 is incredible. The in-body stabilisation means I can shoot confidently at 1/50 of a second and even down to 1/20 if I am very careful which is amazing for a 45MP camera. I used to always carry a tripod when out and about in the countryside but the ability to shoot at slow shutter speeds in low light (great high ISO performance) has allowed me to leave the tripod in the car far more often. The F4 rather than 2.8 is not a big issue as the electonic viewfinder makes it a lot easier to see in poor light. It is not great auto-focusing in low light and it is lacking in the action department in terms of focus tracking in comparison to the D850 which is incredibly good in both departments. 

 

It would be a big step up if you went for a 45MP camera but there are some real benefits, not least the ability to crop very significantly and still get a decent sized image - very useful for sport among other things. Those who have never used such a high MP camera sometimes scoff but those of us who use them know the benefits. But you also need to consider whether your computer can handle large files. 

 

I think probably the biggest advantage of Nikon over Sony is that they are still making DSLRs and have a huge range of secondhand lenses and other kit available. There is not a lot if anything between the sensors as far as I know. Until recently Sony were making the Nikon sensors but that has changed apparently.

 

I see from your Instagram that you do a lot of surf photography which presumably explains the need to get your kit repaired so often. Pro level kit with good weather sealing would seem to be sensible as it might be false economy to go for prosumer kit which may not be as good in that department and you spend a fortune getting it repaired.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by MDM

[Betty LaRue]

On 12/11/2019 at 12:43, Shergar said:

Boy what a nightmare it is. So many choices! The last time I did this I was buying glass for a Canon 300D,  very little choice back then. Why do these camera companies make all the models sound alike? Im not so interested in having the latest video I fear that could lead to major computer upgrades, heaven forbid. Canon seems to have slipped behind a bit over the years and I have been repairing cameras because I have glass and repairing glass because I have cameras . I have not kept up very well with other developments as I have always thought the only time I need to know anything about cameras is when I have needed to buy one and that has always been replacing  one canon model for the next. Times have changed!!!  I think Im going to stick between Nikon and Sony, adding anything else could fry the little brain that's left.

 

Appreciate all and any help

 

Best 

 

Shergar (completely lost once again) 

I’m shooting with a Fuji X-T2. And I disagree with Michael a bit. (Sorry)  I had a Nikon D800 and often had the 80-400 lens on it. It was way too heavy to hand-hold and get anything useful from it. Of course this is from the female perspective.  I put the combo on a monopod or leaned it on a bean bag in my car window while using my car as a blind.
I now have a Fujinon 100-400 lens, and on the X-T2, I can hand-hold it easy enough and get a good percentage of keepers. 

It’s kind of like drinking a diet coke while eating a candy bar.  Every calorie not consumed, (food) every ounce lighter, (gear) counts. Then there’s that feather that broke the camel’s back. 😊

Almost everything for 28 of my last pages were shot with either the X-T1, X-T2 or one of the RX100 models (1 or 2). Before that, different Nikons starting with the D70 through D800 and Sony RX100. I will say the Fuji lens lineup is great. I have about 8 of them. (I know, GAS is a problem of mine.) They are all sharp and excellent and the images pass QC with no effort. The storefronts are shot with a very handy and light 18-135 lens which also works for travel. It’s not a bokeh lens but I don’t use it for that.

What I glean from different portfolios, almost any brand of gear will work for stock. I find 24mp is the perfect size. I didn’t like the D800’s 36mp. Overkill.  24mp still gives me cropping room and the files are manageable. Fuji was way better than Sony in the mirrorless field in the beginning, mostly because of the wide range and excellence of the  lenses. Sony has played catch-up there, and I assume people are happy with them now.
Sherger, you have a great portfolio.

Betty

Edited November 13, 2019 by Betty LaRue

[Mr Standfast]

I know I'm mixing threads, but if Fujifilm were food it would be Bacon....mmmm Bacon...🤤

[Shergar]

Thank you Betty for your kind words and you and the others for taking the time to post your opinions. That is exactly what I need to help me make a decision on what I should do next . Im searching, researching and reading everything that I can find. My biggest problem is that I shoot so many different things "sport, wildlife, landscape and any stock I can think of"  It would be a lot easier if I didn't cover so much. Nevertheless variety is the spice of life and hopefully I will find a combination that will cover all. We are lucky to have so much trusted knowledge available on these Alamy discussion boards . Once again thank you so much to all that have posted on this and other topics that have been so helpful . 

 

Best wishes to all.

[Marianne]

I have both a 16MP Olympus OMD E-1 (my first mirrorless purchase in 2015) and a 42MP A7rii, which I bought after selling most of my Nikon kit last year (I still use the 50mm f/1.4 and the 20mm f/2.8 lenses with manual adapter on the Sony - sold the 24-70mm f/2.8 which I regret). I'm 4'11" with a bad back and shoulders so for me the switch was a must. I actually like both of these kits for different reasons. Here's a brief article I wrote about it with photo comparisons: Consider Switching to Mirrorless

and another from when I just had the Olympus: Light and Quiet MIrrorless (that's my daughter in the photo, which they licensed from Alamy)

 

I'm in a quandary now about what to do for a travel zoom, as I only have primes for the Sony. On the one hand, the Sony is even better than my Nikon D700 was in low light. I've sold photos shot at ISO 2500! I never went above ISO 800 with the D700. A Sony and zoom combo is probably  light for a young healthy guy, but for a petite grandma, the tiny size of the Olympus really shines. The Sony takes better photos, but I use both cameras about the same amount of time. And Sony stops working when it goes below 32 degrees, although unless you are up in the mountains in winter out in California, that may not be an issue for you. It means no snow pix here in NY when it's freezing. No sunrise or sunset in winter either (though with global warming I was out shooting in February 2018 when I got the camera).  

 

The A7riii's are on sale I think now that they came out with the A7riv - I got the rii on sale when they came out with the riii,. 

 

The build quality of the little Olympus seems better to me than the Sony, and you couldn't beat the hard-wearing Nikons - so I'd talk to other surf photographers on that score. I opted for the Sony before Nikon came out with the Z Cameras, so now I'm committed. 

 

One thing that's great for a zoom with the Olympus is that it's a 2x crop factor so you get a lot of reach - and I think the newest E1 is now 24MP. I don't crop into my 42MP photos much since I spent years shooting with a 12MP D700 and frame my work as I intend, so I agree with Betty that 24MP is probably fine.

 

But to print large landscape photos, or to take them, the full frame Sony is heaven.And absolutely amazing in low light - hand held ISO 2500. Not downsized at all and flew through  QC. I got my first fail in years right before this submission, so they looked. 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Marianne

[MDM]

The requirement for sport would probably rule out Fuji and Olympus I think. These cameras may be capable of doing sports photography but they are not ideal as far as I can see - no direct experience with either system I have to say. For such general purpose (sport, wildlife, landscape and anything else that comes to mind) I would not consider anything but a full frame system. Definitely consider a high MP camera as well - the advantages are very significant.  

 

Therefore I would suggest that it comes down to  a straight battle between Sony and Nikon. If it doesn't have to be mirrorless then the D850 does all of the above and does it all incredibly well (and the prices have come way down as well). If mirrorless is a requirement then Sony are currently in the lead in the action arena but Nikon are breathing down their necks. The next mirrorless offering from Nikon will likely make up for the current shortcomings in terms of rapid AF tracking. There is nothing between them in terms of image quality (sensors). 

[hdh]

Did you also consider the new EOS R? 

It has a similar price tag to the Sony and you can continue using your glasses. 

 

I would not suggest a high MP camera, that requires all new and high quality lenses. 

Out of experience - the old L24-70 2.8 will not give you much more than 20 sharp MP's on a 5dsr. 

 

A few years ago I also considered changing to Nikon or Sony. 

Then read through their manuals to get a clue how they operate.

At the time I decided the hurdle of change would be high for me and finally stayed with Canon. 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by hdh

[MDM]

4 hours ago, hdh said:

Did you also consider the new EOS R? 

It has a similar price tag to the Sony and you can continue using your glasses. 

 

I would not suggest a high MP camera, that requires all new and high quality lenses. 

Out of experience - the old L24-70 2.8 will not give you much more than 20 sharp MP's on a 5dsr. 

 

A few years ago I also considered changing to Nikon or Sony. 

Then read through their manuals to get a clue how they operate.

At the time I decided the hurdle of change would be high for me and finally stayed with Canon. 

 

 

I didn't consider the Canon mirrorless cameras in what I said above as the general view from detailed reviews is that they lack some important features of the Nikons and Sonys. The lack of  in-body stabilisation is a really big one and the sensors are regarded as not being as good as the Nikons and Sonys in terms of dynamic range and noise. See the conclusions to this review for example. For somebody with existing Canon lenses then that might outweigh some of the negatives but the fact that his lenses are very old and have been repaired many times would seem to negate any advantage to staying with Canon. Sony are still leading the way in full frame mirrorless, Nikon are breathing down their necks but Canon still have a lot of catching up to do it seems. 

 

 

[Marianne]

The quality of the Sonys is amazing. 

 

I'm using some old Nikon and old Olympus lenses (from the 1970s) with my Sony and an two inexpensive manual adapters and the quality is great, so I'm not sure what the problem is with older lenses. You can get an adapter for your old Canon glass - either a manual one or one that will work with autofocus, so you can start using a new camera with older glass and take your time replacing it with dedicated Sony lenses. 

[MDM]

14 minutes ago, Marianne said:

The quality of the Sonys is amazing. 

 

I'm using some old Nikon and old Olympus lenses (from the 1970s) with my Sony and an two inexpensive manual adapters and the quality is great, so I'm not sure what the problem is with older lenses. You can get an adapter for your old Canon glass - either a manual one or one that will work with autofocus, so you can start using a new camera with older glass and take your time replacing it with dedicated Sony lenses. 

 

There is nothing worth talking about it seems between the Sonys and the Nikons in terms of image quality at equivalent MP size so decisions on which to go for should be made on other criteria.

 

His older lenses appear to have been through the mill (repaired many times) so probably still usable but not a decision criterion on what to buy I would say. Also if going for mirrorless on the basis of weight, sticking an old 24-70 2.8 on is going to negate the advantages of the weight loss. While an F2.8 is highly desirable on a DSLR if shooting in low light, with mirrorless the wide aperture is not so important because the electronic viewfinder will brighten things up a lot. The Nikon 24-70 F4 that comes as part of a kit with the Z6 and Z7 is an astoundingly sharp lens.

[Marianne]

11 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

There is nothing worth talking about it seems between the Sonys and the Nikons in terms of image quality at equivalent MP size so decisions on which to go for should be made on other criteria.

 

His older lenses appear to have been through the mill (repaired many times) so probably still usable but not a decision criterion on what to buy I would say. Also if going for mirrorless on the basis of weight, sticking an old 24-70 2.8 on is going to negate the advantages of the weight loss. While an F2.8 is highly desirable on a DSLR if shooting in low light, with mirrorless the wide aperture is not so important because the electronic viewfinder will brighten things up a lot. The Nikon 24-70 F4 that comes as part of a kit with the Z6 and Z7 is an astoundingly sharp lens.

 

I didn't think about that in terms of aperture with mirrorless,  and I guess for me with old lenses I only kept my lighter primes, so they don't add appreciable weight. 

 

I sold two cameras and a ton of lenses, used the money to buy one camera and two lenses, so it worked out, really lightened up the kit in more ways than one. 😎

 

It's a hard decision switching systems. Easier for me since I tend to shoot more landscape, and those lenses are much lighter. Only heavy one is the new Sony 90mm macro - which doubles as an awesome portrait lens. 

[MDM]

18 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

I didn't think about that in terms of aperture with mirrorless,  and I guess for me with old lenses I only kept my lighter primes, so they don't add appreciable weight. 

 

I sold two cameras and a ton of lenses, used the money to buy one camera and two lenses, so it worked out, really lightened up the kit in more ways than one. 😎

 

It's a hard decision switching systems. Easier for me since I tend to shoot more landscape, and those lenses are much lighter. Only heavy one is the new Sony 90mm macro - which doubles as an awesome portrait lens. 

Yes I was surprised when I got the F4 as I thought F2.8 was essential for low light shooting. It is also exceptionally good wide open. I think when it comes to longer telephotos the weight advantage of mirrorless gets wiped out as the lenses are much heavier than the bodies anyway. A medium telephoto macro lens that doubles as a portrait lens is always a good one to have in the bag. The Sony 90 sounds good. Tamron and Nikon have excellent macro lenses in this range as well. 

 

It is hard to be really objective on a question like Shergar's as most of us don't have access to more than one system so people tend to say what their own favourite is. I don't know about Sony and US prices which are always way better than this side of the Atlantic but Nikon have dropped their prices massively at the moment - often 30% less than they were earlier in the year.  

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by MDM