Moving to R series

[SpringfieldPhoto]

Having had my R6 for almost a year now, I have to say that I really like the camera but I don't see myself going any further with the R series of cameras or lenses as to move to RF lenses from my current lenses, all of which are high quality, is prohibited by the extortionately high cost of RF lenses, especially in the UK. At my age the thought of spending well in excess £10,000 to get equivalent RF lenses makes the exercise impossible. Fortunately I bought my DSLR cameras fairly recently and they have a fairly long life expectancy. The minimal advantages of the R system for still photography are not enough to tempt me.
All the high quality RF lenses appear to have IS, irrespective of focal length, while this is great for video, it is an unnecessary and expensive addition for still photography. I have seldom used the IS on my EF mount 70-200 and have never used it on my EF mount 24-70.
To keep the shutter count down on my 5D Mk IVs i shall use the R6 as the everyday camera with it's very adequate kit lens and my EF mount lenses with an adapter and reserve my 5D Mk IVs for my special photography. This will possibly change if, as is rumoured, Sigma start producing ART lenses for the RF system.

Example prices: RF 70-200 F2.8 - £2,729.99 Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM Sport (a lens that has been rated better than the RF in several reviews) £1,179.00
Many Canon lenses cost more in £s than Americans pay in dollars.

[lunarbo]

I have always appreciated that you gave a very reasoned appraisal for your R6.
As I understand it , a lot of your work is in a studio and on a tripod and the 5d4 is a tried and trusted workhorse and reliable with your flash. No brainer.
For me the R6 as a travel camera with the 24-240 ( non L but great results ) is an unbeatable combo. Lighter in weight and much improvement in low light. If I add the 100-500L & multi shot I have superb results for wildlife .
Its always going to be horses for courses.
Totally agree re cost of RF lenses.
I just can’t bear to say goodbye to the 5d4, 24-105 L and 15-35L, though, Big lumps but Old friends ….far too good to trade in!

[SpringfieldPhoto]

I never ever use a tripod in the studio. I work entirely hand held. I use a tripod only on Macro shots. My reluctance to change is created by the excessive cost of doing so. I agree that the R6 is great for landscapes and I use it for that and as general camera. Weight is a consideration when out walking. Sport and wildlife the weight makes little difference as high end RF lenses are pretty heavy and extremely expensive.

[@imagesBV]

I find HDEW prices much more realistic , I agree that RF lenses have been priced in a different league. I find the RF100-400, RF600 and RF50 all non L to give excellent results with R6. I think you are making the right business decision to stick with 5D4 and EF glass….it’s different for those of us who do photography on an amateur basis.

[David Stallard]

Can you not just use the ef - rf adaptor? I have tried it on the R3 with my 'old faithful' 70-200 2.8 mkII with the 1.4 extender and if I'm brutally honest - I actually think the files are slightly better than when mounted on the 1DX mkII.

Example shot: DSP_0150 crop.jpg

[David Stallard]

Or the adaptor and ef 100mm 2.8 macro IS

RHS Wisley 16-04-22 0036.jpg RHS Wisley 16-04-22 0047.jpg

[SpringfieldPhoto]

I prefer the balance of 5D4 with my long lenses than with the R6.

[dolina]

Having had my R6 for almost a year now, I have to say that I really like the camera but I don't see myself going any further with the R series of cameras or lenses as to move to RF lenses from my current lenses, all of which are high quality, is prohibited by the extortionately high cost of RF lenses, especially in the UK. At my age the thought of spending well in excess £10,000 to get equivalent RF lenses makes the exercise impossible. Fortunately I bought my DSLR cameras fairly recently and they have a fairly long life expectancy. The minimal advantages of the R system for still photography are not enough to tempt me.
All the high quality RF lenses appear to have IS, irrespective of focal length, while this is great for video, it is an unnecessary and expensive addition for still photography. I have seldom used the IS on my EF mount 70-200 and have never used it on my EF mount 24-70.
To keep the shutter count down on my 5D Mk IVs i shall use the R6 as the everyday camera with it's very adequate kit lens and my EF mount lenses with an adapter and reserve my 5D Mk IVs for my special photography. This will possibly change if, as is rumoured, Sigma start producing ART lenses for the RF system.

Example prices: RF 70-200 F2.8 - £2,729.99 Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM Sport (a lens that has been rated better than the RF in several reviews) £1,179.00
Many Canon lenses cost more in £s than Americans pay in dollars.

Why not just stick to EF system instead? Unless you're a working photographer that uses their camera on a 8-16 hour per day basis to derive income and treats them like a hammer or sickle then odds are well pampered L glass with 5-series bodies will last you 1-2 decades more use.

I watched a working photographer who depends on his 2015 5Ds R for his studio product shots and he said that when those bodies cannot be repaired anymore he'd just buy used copies from hobbyists at less than $1k that is going for on eBay right now.