Comparing Canon DSLR To Canon R mirrorless Equipment

I notice very little dimensional difference in full frame R bodies and RF lenses compared to full frame DSLR bodies and EF lenses. Those of the R type being slightly smaller or lighter but not by a significant amount (if you exclude the 1D X Mark III). I rarely shoot video. So what would I gain by switching to one of Canon's mirrorless cameras, given that I already have a large investment in L glass (3 primes and 4 zooms).

The lenses don’t play into the equation at all in the decision to go to a canon mirrorless, other than the additional $99 cost for an EF/EFS adapter.

Just thought I would throw that out. Other than that, there are many features of the R5/R6 well documented that you do not get with canon DSLRs.

Just a few in that list regarding the R5/R6:

o IBIS
o what you see is what you get with the EVF (exposure, etc)
o faster burst rates, with ES (electronic shutter) you get 20fps
o silent shutter (with ES)
o focus peaking making manual focus or macros easier
o EYE AF where the camera locates eyes of people and animals and then follows them, freeing you up to worry about composition of the shot
o ability to review images or go through menu changes in broad daylight using the EVF
o back stage passes into all the new RF glass that has no EF counterparts

Look more closely at RF lenses, some are huge, heavy and way too expensive comparing to EF.
Some common, to most common focal length doesn't exist in RF. Like 24 and 28. Adding huge and heavy EF-R adapter makes the rig longer than same EF lens on EF body.
Battery capacity is laughable with R bodies.

If you are mobile phones generation, you will like this load of AF points and eye recognition. Or if you like touch screens for framing, focusing.

I get more confidence, convinince with joystick and limited AF points. I don't shot just eyes, but portraits where people are in focus and I'm in much better control with selecting of AF point and slight recompose.

EVF is annoyance if I shot fast moving objects.

And even in mobile phones, mirrorless generation of active shooters here is the movement of ditching mirrorless and switching to DSLRs.

Last year I watched seminar with Canon Canada embassador. She was using DSLR. She uses 50L often. But 50L RF is total failure, IMO, due to gigantic size and way too much weight for prime.

If I would give mirrorless another try, since R line is disappointing, it is going to be Sony where much more lenses are available and they are small. Or Olympus. Truly small cameras, lenses and way better than Canon weather sealing.

kf095 wrote in post #19326759
Look more closely at RF lenses, some are huge, heavy and way too expensive comparing to EF.
Some common, to most common focal length doesn't exist in RF. Like 24 and 28. Adding huge and heavy EF-R adapter makes the rig longer than same EF lens on EF body.
Battery capacity is laughable with R bodies.

If you are mobile phones generation, you will like this load of AF points and eye recognition. Or if you like touch screens for framing, focusing.

I get more confidence, convinince with joystick and limited AF points. I don't shot just eyes, but portraits where people are in focus and I'm in much better control with selecting of AF point and slight recompose.

EVF is annoyance if I shot fast moving objects.

And even in mobile phones, mirrorless generation of active shooters here is the movement of ditching mirrorless and switching to DSLRs.

Last year I watched seminar with Canon Canada embassador. She was using DSLR. She uses 50L often. But 50L RF is total failure, IMO, due to gigantic size and way too much weight for prime.

If I would give mirrorless another try, since R line is disappointing, it is going to be Sony where much more lenses are available and they are small. Or Olympus. Truly small cameras, lenses and way better than Canon weather sealing.

The adapter is huge and heavy? Really? It only makes the mounting flange the same distance as the DSLR body already has in place, and it is pretty darn light considering it is nothing but air and a housing. My R6 with adapter mounted is less bulky than my 5D4 in fact, and feels lighter. Your huge, heavy, massive notations seem overly dramatic to try to make a point?

The R isn't any kind of Canon mirrorless litmus test, it was their first "quick to market" offering. The R6 and R5 is so much better in all regards over the R. Also, you don't have to use touch screen anything to set focus points, and your framing is you just framing the scene accordingly with your head and hands. To set which focus point, ust use the joystick like you do with DSLRs on the newer models, or on the R3, the touch AF ON button like the 1DX3. I never even change AF points, I have my initial AF point locked in, I start AF ON with that point on the subject, the camera then tracks that object for me, and I compose/frame the scene as the camera keeps focus when I shoot. Very easy and very similar to what I do on my DSLRs.

Finally, what do you think the battery life is? It appears you may not really be familiar on that entire subject. Many of us get 700-1000 shots on our mirrorless just as an FYI.

Which Canon mirrorless did you end up trying that left you with these conclusions? I am guessing maybe the RP or R?

kf095 wrote in post #19326759
Battery capacity is laughable with R bodies.

People keep mentioning this but my own experience with the R6 is that battery life very much depends on how you shoot. If e.g. you are a sports shooter and shoot in bursts a lot you can literally take many thousands of shots on a fully charged battery and still have juice left. I’ve come back from the field shooting a lot of bird action and firing off a lot of shots and had over 3000 shots on one battery and it still wasn’t drained yet.

Having said that, my normal mode of shooting is rather controlled with an occasional burst and some longer sequences for birds in flight and on average I get some 1000-1200 shots on one battery. That is less than with my 1D bodies for sure, but for my way of shooting I wouldn’t call that laughable. However, if you only take one shot at a time the battery will run out much faster.

So it really depends on how you shoot: the more shots you fire, the longer the battery will last.

If I turn on ECO mode, turn off GPS and wireless, and don't have image playback turned on, it gives me this 700-1000 number I quoted, based on how I use the camera. I will run through the menus, I will replay images to review, etc all into the EVF, and supposed the EVF draws more power than the rear LCD. If I used the rear LCD like I do on my DSLRs, then my battery life might actually go up a bit.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19326851
If I turn on ECO mode, turn off GPS and wireless, and don't have image playback turned on, it gives me this 700-1000 number I quoted, based on how I use the camera. I will run through the menus, I will replay images to review, etc all into the EVF, and supposed the EVF draws more power than the rear LCD. If I used the rear LCD like I do on my DSLRs, then my battery life might actually go up a bit.

This is the one thing that I've found to be abysmal compared to the 7DII/5D4. With the R5, I HAVE to have at least 3 batteries with me for any given day of shooting...I can only get around 400 shots, maybe, out of a battery as I have the VF in perf mode to make sure I don't get a headache from too low of refresh rates. I used to be able to shoot all day and part of the next with the older models. I've had to make sure that I have a button to turn off the rear screen so that it doesn't keep running once I put the camera "down" on the strap after use, and I find trying to do image reviews via the EVF to be an absolutely horrible process for me. So, I can't straight up disable that screen or rotate it closed.

EDIT: I'm also sort of curious now that you've brought it up. I wonder if shooting to the CF-E card draws a bunch more juice to keep up the silly high transfer speeds vs shooting to SD.

DrJ wrote in post #19326693
.
I notice very little dimensional difference in full frame R bodies and RF lenses compared to full frame DSLR bodies and EF lenses. Those of the R type being slightly smaller or lighter but not by a significant amount (if you exclude the 1D X Mark III). I rarely shoot video. So what would I gain by switching to one of Canon's mirrorless cameras, given that I already have a large investment in L glass (3 primes and 4 zooms).
.

.
Smaller size and lighter weight aren't really important, anyway. . The size of the DSLRs and lenses that you and I have been using for years is just fine. . So the new mirrorless gear should not be judges according to how large/small or heavy/light they are, because that was never supposed to be the point, anyway.

The massive advantages to the new full frame mirrorless cameras that Canon offers has to do with .....

accurate focus with no micro adjustment needed,

and for their ability to autofocus on something no matter where it is in the frame,

and to focus track the subject's eyes,

and to provide focus peaking via the LCD live view display,

and to show you what the final image will look like, with regards to exposure, before you even take the shot, as a way to better ensure proper exposure at the point of capture.

It never should have been about size and weight, because those things don't really matter anyway. . But somehow some people got sidetracked off on that tangent and that caused masses of people to mistakenly think that mirrorless was all about small and light.


.

Size and weight DO indeed matter. It may not matter to some, but to those that have arthritis, or other physical ailments that develop with age, what used to be a manageable camera and lens combination may not work any longer. So a lighter weight body and lighter equivalent lens is very welcome by many.

These may not matter to you or I that much, but I know many on the forum where this does, and even in my family, I have photographers where this matters more and more. My dad would be unable to carry around the gear I do, he would just give up photography if he had to. This is why Sony is still superior to Canon in regards to mirrorless, because their bodies are quite a bit smaller and lighter, and some of the equiv lenses are also lighter. This means Canon better care perhaps a bit more than maybe you or I do on this front, because otherwise, as folks get older, they will migrate off Canon gear if there are no options.

And this isn't just an age thing. For avid hikers, every pound removed from their gear means less fatigue farther down the trail. For frequent travelers (flights, etc), having lighter smaller gear means that there might be less carry-on or one fewer checked bag, and less weight to haul from the airport to the hotel to the various site destinations.

For some, I suspect weight/size is MUCH more important than Eye AF or full-frame AF capabilities or High ISO performance.

kf095 wrote in post #19326759
Look more closely at RF lenses, some are huge, heavy and way too expensive comparing to EF.
Some common, to most common focal length doesn't exist in RF. Like 24 and 28. Adding huge and heavy EF-R adapter makes the rig longer than same EF lens on EF body.
Battery capacity is laughable with R bodies.

If you are mobile phones generation, you will like this load of AF points and eye recognition. Or if you like touch screens for framing, focusing.

I get more confidence, convinince with joystick and limited AF points. I don't shot just eyes, but portraits where people are in focus and I'm in much better control with selecting of AF point and slight recompose.

EVF is annoyance if I shot fast moving objects.

Sorry, but your post kinda reads like nonsense. Some of the RF lenses are quite expensive, I’ll give you that. Other than that I can’t really follow you.

As the RF lens mount is fairly new, of course there will be lenses missing from the line up. What did you expect? That Canon would wait with the launch of a new mount until they had all “common” lenses ready?
Do you know ANY camera manufacturer who do so?

Huge and heavy adapter? For real? It is 110g and adds 24mm to the length of the lens?

Yes, battery life is not as you are used to from a DSLR. Because it isn’t a DSLR. That said it is by no means laughable. I have been out for hours, shooting wildlife, taking hundreds of pictures with my EOS R without having to switch batteries. Granted, with my DSLR I could probably have been able to stretch it for days, but that does not make the R’s battery life laughable.

If you don’t like touch screens and eye AF, you can just choose not to do it. On the R and R6 I can use the touchscreen as joystick if I choose, but I would prefer a real joystick, which, luckily, my R6 also have.

EVF annoyances are subjective I guess, I can use the EVF to track and shoot birds in flight with both the R and R6, but must admit it does take some getting used to but other than that it is not an issue.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19326943
Size and weight DO indeed matter. It may not matter to some, but to those that have arthritis, or other physical ailments that develop with age, what used to be a manageable camera and lens combination may not work any longer. So a lighter weight body and lighter equivalent lens is very welcome by many.

These may not matter to you or I that much, but I know many on the forum where this does, and even in my family, I have photographers where this matters more and more. My dad would be unable to carry around the gear I do, he would just give up photography if he had to. This is why Sony is still superior to Canon in regards to mirrorless, because their bodies are quite a bit smaller and lighter, and some of the equiv lenses are also lighter. This means Canon better care perhaps a bit more than maybe you or I do on this front, because otherwise, as folks get older, they will migrate off Canon gear if there are no options.

And this isn't just an age thing. For avid hikers, every pound removed from their gear means less fatigue farther down the trail. For frequent travelers (flights, etc), having lighter smaller gear means that there might be less carry-on or one fewer checked bag, and less weight to haul from the airport to the hotel to the various site destinations.

For some, I suspect weight/size is MUCH more important than Eye AF or full-frame AF capabilities or High ISO performance.

Indeed, the Olympus OM-1 sparked an interest in compact body SLRs, and Canon did extremely well in popularizing compact body SLRs with the general public. OTOH, the smartcamera has disinterested so much of the general public from carrying a single-purpose component (be it music player or camera or GPS) it remains to be seen how much true demand there still is for compact body; the need for motors for AF (and sometimes IS) keeps lenses inherently bulkier than in the SLR days The CIPA yearly analysis might better show us the public buying practices.

Wilt wrote in post #19326965
Indeed, the Olympus OM-1 sparked an interest in compact body SLRs, and Canon did extremely well in popularizing compact body SLRs with the general public. OTOH, the smartcamera has disinterested so much of the general public from carrying a single-purpose component (be it music player or camera or GPS) it remains to be seen how much true demand there still is for compact body; the need for motors for AF (and sometimes IS) keeps lenses inherently bulkier than in the SLR days The CIPA yearly analysis might better show us the public buying practices.

This seems like a different discussion point than an issue of weight/size of gear, or more pointedly, a sweeping brush stroke that says size/weight/bulk of gear doesn't matter when looking at mirrorless gear.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19326967
This seems like a different discussion point than an issue of weight/size of gear, or more pointedly, a sweeping brush stroke that says size/weight/bulk of gear doesn't matter when looking at mirrorless gear.

How is it that traditional full sized bodies like Topcon D-1 and Minolta SRT-101 and Canon F-1 start as primarily enthusiast bodies, and then suddenly result in mass market acceptance with the Canon AE-1, Olumpus OM-10, Nikon EM, Pentax M series, etc. carried by so many tourist shooters, not an earlier reflection of the popularization of MILC reduced body size/wieght...Canon even jumped in with the M series and finally with the R series.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19326940
.
Smaller size and lighter weight aren't really important, anyway. . The size of the DSLRs and lenses that you and I have been using for years is just fine. . So the new mirrorless gear should not be judges according to how large/small or heavy/light they are, because that was never supposed to be the point, anyway.

...

It never should have been about size and weight, because those things don't really matter anyway. . But somehow some people got sidetracked off on that tangent and that caused masses of people to mistakenly think that mirrorless was all about small and light.

.

Size and weight are VERY important to me. One of the reasons I went with the R5 was that it was comparable to the crop frame bodies I was using, despite being an FF body. Best of both worlds.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19326943
Size and weight DO indeed matter. It may not matter to some, but to those that have arthritis, or other physical ailments that develop with age, what used to be a manageable camera and lens combination may not work any longer. So a lighter weight body and lighter equivalent lens is very welcome by many.

These may not matter to you or I that much, but I know many on the forum where this does, and even in my family, I have photographers where this matters more and more. My dad would be unable to carry around the gear I do, he would just give up photography if he had to. This is why Sony is still superior to Canon in regards to mirrorless, because their bodies are quite a bit smaller and lighter, and some of the equiv lenses are also lighter. This means Canon better care perhaps a bit more than maybe you or I do on this front, because otherwise, as folks get older, they will migrate off Canon gear if there are no options.

And this isn't just an age thing. For avid hikers, every pound removed from their gear means less fatigue farther down the trail. For frequent travelers (flights, etc), having lighter smaller gear means that there might be less carry-on or one fewer checked bag, and less weight to haul from the airport to the hotel to the various site destinations.

For some, I suspect weight/size is MUCH more important than Eye AF or full-frame AF capabilities or High ISO performance.

I have to say that growing older, weight has become a factor for me too, Cary. Ten years ago I thought it irrelevant, but now it most definitely is. Going full frame for birds my EF 400/5.6L lens became too short and I thought about getting a nicely used EF 500/4 mkI but the weight is just too much now. And even the Sigma 150-600C would amount to more than 2 kg with the adapter. The RF 100-500 is just 1,5 metric pounds and it’s about the same weight as my 400/5.6 lens with adapter, so for me it was the logical choice. And I couldn’t be happier. All I need now is better weather, some nice light. Or, well, any light really…