Upgrade from 5D Mark II: 5D Mark IV or EOS R?

Ya but I wasn’t planning on replacing my glass. ߤע
♂️

Chiming in late.

If I was shooting for fun I would get the R. The benefits of mirrorless are great and you get the pathway to the new awesome lenses. The fact you,can adapt the EF Lenses is awesome. There are some REALLY nice glass for Ef.

Shooting for money (in my case events and weddings ) I would choose the 5d4 for its more robust build, weather sealing and speed of changing settings with all the dials and AF options. Plus I am paranoid and feel better with two cards.

I can’t see how you can go wrong with either. They have a very similar sensor so IQ is going to be pretty much the same where it actually matters.

I tired to talk myself into adding an R to my 2x 5D4s but could not see the point. I think I would need a month or two to get used to the EVF... I personally do not like it and find it distracting. But I imagine it’s just because I am not used to it.

This is why the RP will sell well, many of us with DSLRs don't want to spend yet another $2K for what seems to be a sideways move to what we may already have, but might want access to the new lenses. $1300 is much better from an cash outlay to do this to get 90% of the EOS R for 65% of the cost.

George Zip wrote in post #18820744
Chiming in late.

If I was shooting for fun I would get the R. The benefits of mirrorless are great and you get the pathway to the new awesome lenses. The fact you,can adapt the EF Lenses is awesome. There are some REALLY nice glass for Ef.

Shooting for money (in my case events and weddings ) I would choose the 5d4 for its more robust build, weather sealing and speed of changing settings with all the dials and AF options. Plus I am paranoid and feel better with two cards.

I can’t see how you can go wrong with either. They have a very similar sensor so IQ is going to be pretty much the same where it actually matters.

I tired to talk myself into adding an R to my 2x 5D4s but could not see the point. I think I would need a month or two to get used to the EVF... I personally do not like it and find it distracting. But I imagine it’s just because I am not used to it.

I agree with your views on this topic. I incorporate my Sony for my higher performance needs of FF mirrorless. However I still do not use it for hired events.

The price of the EOS R and it's infancy of features is still about 3 grand Canadian$$. This "fun camera" for me is still not worth the price for my "fun" camera. For a fun camera the Fuji mirrorless is a cheaper "fun" solution for me. However even for me I'm using my Sony a lot more these days as it just performs better in some cases.

5dmk3/4 is still my go to mirrored system. Using AF-S with external flash red focus assist just works in pitch darkness. I do not know how well the EOS R performs or even know if my current Canon flashes I own emit a red assist beam. Red assist beam on mirrorless just isn't as good compared to a mirrored AF system.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18820808
This is why the RP will sell well, many of us with DSLRs don't want to spend yet another $2K for what seems to be a sideways move to what we may already have, but might want access to the new lenses. $1300 is much better from an cash outlay to do this to get 90% of the EOS R for 65% of the cost.

I think if I did not own my Sony mirrorless system I'd probably would have tested the 3 grand EOS R as a mirrorless fun camera. BUT the thing about Sony for me is the dead silent fast AF in all of my E mount lenses I own. For casual family video documentation adapting EF glass to Canon FF mirrorless is Buzzzzzz buzzzzz bzzzzt bzzzzz while you shoot video. Sony just is an amazing system for stills and video for casual shooters to demanding folks.

The price of EOS RP at $1700 cdn is a great solution for people wanting to get their feet wet in FF mirrorless. For video I'd need to invest in RF glass, which I intend to do. But at this point if I want Canon render/colours I'll happily use my Canon mirrored gear for all my hired needs.

If I only had a Canon 5dmk3/4 and feel I'd stick to one system only I'd go EOS R or RP. Then slowly build RF lens lineup for my gear bag. Then you'd get Canon goodness with silent AF motor in the RF line. Adapt the older EF glass as a make shift solution to keep shooting.

So many ways to approach gear acquisition. Needs first and see how the future holds as a "new" FF mirrorless matures and grows. Canon at this point is looking very good in the lens category. As usual Canon is pathetic in putting out bodies that have features compared to their competitors. However, Teamspeed you shoot Canon so we all know how it rolls in Canon evolution.

I personally don't see any need to migrate to the Canon mirrorless. They are just cameras that provide a few extra goodies over the DSLRs I have, but they don't have to replace what I have.

I have 3 types of cameras now, and don't feel the need to migrate to just one kind. I am not convinced many people are looking at Canon mirrorless as something to move to, but rather perhaps they are looking to augment what they have. Until Canon shows maturity in their offerings and value for the money, there is no pressing need to move fully to their mirrorless. That won't happen for a few years I feel across the global Canon membership.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18820817
I personally don't see any need to migrate to the Canon mirrorless. They are just cameras that provide a few extra goodies over the DSLRs I have, but they don't have to replace what I have.

I have 3 types of cameras now, and don't feel the need to migrate to just one kind. I am not convinced many people are looking at Canon mirrorless as something to move to, but rather perhaps they are looking to augment what they have. Until Canon shows maturity in their offerings and value for the money, there is no pressing need to move fully to their mirrorless. That won't happen for a few years I feel across the global Canon membership.

Sounds about right.....

However using my A73 I do appreciate it's ibis, focus peaking and eye AF. I use my 5dmk4 and when I grab the A73 I must retrain my brain in how I shoot. I've taken some photos in low light using manual focus and peaking while viewing the EVF. Something I know I would have struggled with my 5dmk4.

The 3 grand EOS R or $1600 EOS RP is not worth shelling out for me at this point. I can put that towards nice Sony glass.

In due time when Canon provides better FF mirrorless I will invest in RF gla_$$ and "better" mirrorless FF bodies from the Canon world.

Teamspeed if a person is not shooting events I think it's simply a choice in taking advantage of Canon FF mirrorless features while retaining Canon colours and render.

I still only use my 5Dmk3/4 for hired events. However shooting my A73 with GM16-35mm is an incredible combo for balance/weight vs my 5dmk4 with 16-35 f/2.8mk2 UWA lens. This is something my Fuji cannot touch as far as my IQ preference is concerned.

Now I am wondering about the RP as a replacement for my SL2 because it would still allow me to use my EF-S lenses and would remain relatively small & light but would allow the “experience” of mirrorless & also access to the R lenses (NOT as a replacement for my 5DIV). Yes, the M50 is a less expensive Canon mirrorless camera but it irritates me a great deal that the lens adapter is nearly $200 for the M50! IMHO it should come w/ the camera like it does for the R and the RP.

ozziepuppy wrote in post #18820941
Now I am wondering about the RP as a replacement for my SL2 because it would still allow me to use my EF-S lenses and would remain relatively small & light but would allow the “experience” of mirrorless & also access to the R lenses (NOT as a replacement for my 5DIV). Yes, the M50 is a less expensive Canon mirrorless camera but it irritates me a great deal that the lens adapter is nearly $200 for the M50! IMHO it should come w/ the camera like it does for the R and the RP.

I had an SL2 and moved to the M50. Had I not moved to the M50, I would have definitely moved to the EOS RP.

As to the the M50 adapters, the Fotodiox works just as well and is only $40. I also picked up the Viltrox .71x booster that allows my FF lenses no longer shoot at 1.6 crop but rather 1.1 crop. This is a sample from my Sigma 50 1.4 lens that now turns out to be a 55mm f1 on the M50, instead of 80mm f1.4.

Well, I'm sitting here now taking a break from setting settings on my new EOS R (nicknamed: Yoserian on my network)

One thing I realize: Don't pay attention to what anyone says about not liking the controls of the Yoser unless he's lived with it for...maybe two or three months. This level of customization is nearly intimidating.

Here's a point: So many people complain about the multifunction bar being too easy to press. But did they know that the lock button can be set to lock the multifunction bar, and that's pretty quick to manipulate. This camera is like Photoshop--so many ways to do different things that nobody who has only had it in hand for a few hours or a couple of days or even a couple of weeks can have really gotten the settings optimized for his own use.

All this talk about mirrorless presenting 'the real DOF' in the viewfinder, as a compositional aid, made me start to wonder. The EOS R is 0.5-inch OLED display with 3.69 million dots at 0.76X, while the EOS RP is 0.39-inch OLED EVF with resolution of 2.36 million dots and offers 100% coverage with 0.7x magnification.

I know that with an expensive (for its time) SLR with 55mm f/1.4 lens, I could not accurately assess f/1.4 DOF limits via its viewfinder, compared with theoretical DOF -- both the grossly optimistic 'manufacturer standard' DOF and the more precise 20/20 vision DOF.

So what is the ability of EITHER camera (EOS R, EOS RP) to portray DOF with realism??? The views are shrunk by 25-30% from what is presented to the sensor, and so the CofC is seen at only 8-9% of the 8" print size CofC that is assumed in DOF calculations.

Wilt wrote in post #18821260
All this talk about mirrorless presenting 'the real DOF' in the viewfinder, as a compositional aid, made me start to wonder. The EOS R is 0.5-inch OLED display with 3.69 million dots at 0.76X, while the EOS RP is 0.39-inch OLED EVF with resolution of 2.36 million dots and offers 100% coverage with 0.7x magnification.

I know that with an expensive (for its time) SLR with 55mm f/1.4 lens, I could not accurately assess f/1.4 DOF limits via its viewfinder, compared with theoretical DOF -- both the grossly optimistic 'manufacturer standard' DOF and the more precise 20/20 vision DOF.

So what is the ability of EITHER camera (EOS R, EOS RP) to portray DOF with realism??? The views are shrunk by 25-30% from what is presented to the sensor, and so the CofC is seen at only 8-9% of the 8" print size CofC that is assumed in DOF calculations.

Relatively speaking, they give a better idea of what the depth of field will be--particularly at small apertures--than an optical viewfinder. I always had very little use of a depth of field preview switch until Live View because it rendered the groundglass darkly. So this just brings that into the viewfinder.

"Better" does not imply "perfect."

Wilt wrote in post #18821260
All this talk about mirrorless presenting 'the real DOF' in the viewfinder, as a compositional aid, made me start to wonder. The EOS R is 0.5-inch OLED display with 3.69 million dots at 0.76X, while the EOS RP is 0.39-inch OLED EVF with resolution of 2.36 million dots and offers 100% coverage with 0.7x magnification.

I know that with an expensive (for its time) SLR with 55mm f/1.4 lens, I could not accurately assess f/1.4 DOF limits via its viewfinder, compared with theoretical DOF -- both the grossly optimistic 'manufacturer standard' DOF and the more precise 20/20 vision DOF.

So what is the ability of EITHER camera (EOS R, EOS RP) to portray DOF with realism??? The views are shrunk by 25-30% from what is presented to the sensor, and so the CofC is seen at only 8-9% of the 8" print size CofC that is assumed in DOF calculations.

CoC is often a distraction, IMO. It focuses on what is at maximum appreciable acuity or close to it, and ignores one real reason shallow DOF is often desired; what happens far from the plane of focus (isolation through big blur).

DLSRs have focus screens which are not functionally transparent, but have strong optical properties which totally alter the transmission of light from oblique angles and the shape of bokeh. An EVF or LCD only alters the bokeh and oblique light through sampling and resampling, but otherwise see the very-OOF areas exactly as they will be captured.

Of course, if the camera is using an open aperture during pre-shot viewing, and you expose stopped-down, WYS is not going to be WYG.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18821416
Of course, if the camera is using an open aperture during pre-shot viewing, and you expose stopped-down, WYS is not going to be WYG.

The purpose of depth of field previewing is to get a grasp of what will be in focus when the lens is stopped down. Or does the world now think "depth of field" is synonymous with "bokeh" as well as thinking "bokeh" is synonymous with "blur?"

RDKirk wrote in post #18821075
Well, I'm sitting here now taking a break from setting settings on my new EOS R (nicknamed: Yoserian on my network)

One thing I realize: Don't pay attention to what anyone says about not liking the controls of the Yoser unless he's lived with it for...maybe two or three months. This level of customization is nearly intimidating.

Here's a point: So many people complain about the multifunction bar being too easy to press. But did they know that the lock button can be set to lock the multifunction bar, and that's pretty quick to manipulate. This camera is like Photoshop--so many ways to do different things that nobody who has only had it in hand for a few hours or a couple of days or even a couple of weeks can have really gotten the settings optimized for his own use.

this really needs to be said about all cameras and brands. You just cant really get used to something likethis by playing around with it in a store or an afternoon
You need to live with it for a while.