I have the 24-70 f4 “kit” lens and I find myself reaching for it over my albeit old, 24-70 f2.8. The IC/colors are fantastic and yeah it’s so damn light!!. No issues at all with low-light performance.
The z 24 - 70 f/4 is a cracking lens… stopped down it’s very good… its downside is that’s its flare performance in high contrast images is a little meh, and it’s colour rendition is slightly subdued compared to the very best.
I have treated myself to the z24-70 f/2.8 S… yes it’s heavier than the f/4 and doesn’t collapse into itself like the f/4, but it’s high contrast performance is outstanding, and its colours just pop out at you naturally even in low light. and is sharp wide open at the edges…great for throwing backgrounds out of focus with an attractive bokeh… the f/4 bokeh doesn’t look as appealing.
2 Likes
I’ve handled a few mirrorless bodies, and the old issue arose for me: too small for me to feel comfortable with.
For now, due to that and just not having the money available for the body I’d want, I’ll be sticking with my 5D3. My frame-count has dropped right off since Covid, from maybe 2,000 to 5,000 frames per year (I gave up machine-gunning action shots years ago) down to maybe 500, so there’s no urgency.
Thankfully I’m not competing with anyone at any club to have the latest and greatest. I don’t buy camera mags.
If I made my living from photography, I’d have jumped ship quite a while ago.
1 Like
The 70-200 f/2.8 will be my treat eventually. If it’s better than the 24-70 f/4 I can’t wait to see it. Again I’m so happy with my mirrorless camera.
1 Like
Maybe but sometimes it can be the camera / lens combo. At one point the 40mm f2 Zeiss Batis had a tendency to miss at certain distances until a firmware update corrected it.
I’ve setup the A9 to use two focus buttons. The actual shutter button only takes the shot and sets the exposure while two buttons at the top rear (under the thumb) are used to focus. One uses a focus point that can be changed fairly quickly in terms of size and position. Usually a smaller box. The second looks and tracks across the entire sensor.
The first is great when you know roughly where the subject will be and you don’t want tracking/eye focus to move too far from that spot, reduce the margin of error by the camera. The other is where you don’t know where they’re going to go or come from and the camera searches the entire sensor not just the focus box. You can change systems in and instant or move back and forth as you need it.
Now, if they could sort it so it would auto detect/select Human, Animal, Bird Eye Detect, that would be great.
It sounds like the Z7-2 is quite similar and I have set up fairly similar… and yes on the z7-2 if you slightly limit the area of eye detection it will react more quickly… good for animals. I have also set one of the user buttons to create a tracking square that will track a subject or area within the field of view as you recompose and move the frame around or the subject is moving rapidly… I have grown to use that a lot … very handy… and when coupled with spot metering… yet another custom button I have setup… gives great control when you need it… and you don’t want to bracket.
Now the Z9 not only eye detects for animals, wild life and people like the z7-2 but has object detect for aircraft and similar… as well as more powerful AI for autofocus… I think I’ll wait for that tech to trickle down … the z9 is too large for me… it’s more pro DSLR size and has a hefty price tag.
2 Likes
Back between 2015-19 I would buy every new iteration of the top end camera as I wanted a faster camera, better tracking etc but with the release of the Sony A9, it reached a level that is more than acceptable for getting the job done so I’ve been able to revert back to the old way of thinking, invest in the glass not the camera.
I will update the cameras if something significant happens but otherwise they are now at the point it’s not necessary anymore. Well, as far as my Sony cameras go.
I’m toying with the idea of getting the Leica Q3 next year. I have a Q-P now and if it wasn’t for work, I’d probably use it all the time. Lovely camera, especially the lens and 24mp sensor. It would be nice to have extra cropping though so the 47mp (Q2) or the reported 60mp of the future Q3 would be good to allow you to use it like a 28-75mm lens and still retain a lot of pixels.
I don’t like the red dot so if they release a Q2-P with it’s matte black understate looks I’ll go for that. They tend to release the P just before they release a new version annoyingly.
As soon as I retire, all the Sony gear will go and I’ll use the funds to buy the latest M and a lens or two. For me, Sony = work and Leica = everyday life. If I don’t do that, it feels like I’m at work everyday 
2 Likes
Hi Tony, I also enjoy my AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G… it’s a cracking lens, as well as being small and light even with a z adapter.
There is something about 50mm focal length on a 135 frame perspective that feels very natural and engaging as opposed to perhaps impactful… perhaps because they say it’s closest to our natural vision perspective.
I do enjoy playing with its very shallow depth of field, great for very close portraits…
2 Likes
I get that, the z7-2 has 45.7 MP and I find that at that resolution that often the lens in real world imaging becomes the limiting factor not the sensor… especially where there is higher contrast … so I can’t see myself going significantly higher than 45 to 50 effective MP as you are pushing the boundary of most current optics, especially in variable zoom setups.
… but it is fun to pixel peep into an image and see details, signs, writing, faces at windows etc that are just not apparent when looking at the image as intended
1 Like
Exactly. When heading over the 60mp line you’d better have the best lenses available otherwise it’s not just the cost of the camera you’ll have to cough up but a replacement set of lenses. If not, you’ll end up reducing the size of the images to sharpen them, which defeats the point.
A 24mp sensor gives you 6000px on the long edge and if you crop down to 4000-5000px you will still have enough to print big and look sharp from 1-2ft away. If you don’t need or want to crop, 24-30mp is more than enough and you have the added benefit of lower noise at higher ISO’s.
1 Like
Indeed … and at 60 MP you really would most likely need to limit yourself to lower contrast work or work mainly with quality primes if not to waste the sensor resolution… it might work well in a studio however which is obviously a more controlled environment… and tethering the camera might be useful with those large file sizes.
But the other consideration one needs to be mindful of, that the higher the density of the sensor, the noisier it becomes in low light… so there are trade offs there. Sure noise performance is constantly improving, but all other things being equal is a real consideration.
It can, but also in terms of depth of field. There are times when I’m working up close to objects at a higher f stop to gain more depth of field. Of course diffraction kicks in so one of the added benefits (when you want more depth) is to move further away from the subject with the same lens and then crop in and still maintain high resolution image.
I use an old 4k TV in my small studio when shooting tethered so I can just look up to it and see exactly what I’m getting. I only shoot white background stuff now which I use for illustrations and composite work.
Reducing high mp images (60mp+) will reduce the noise in the image but you could save a whole lot of money and time and stick to a lower mp camera in the first place. It’s one of the reasons I like 24mp cameras, they’re great in low light.
High mp cameras are great for wildlife shooters though, especially birds in flight. Those guys spend a fortune on cameras and lenses. Makes me glad that’s not my area of expertise
1 Like
Its good to chat with you on here about this … absolutely with higher definition sensors lens diffraction does reduce detail and information at higher f stops - I find I don’t want to really want to be shooting smaller than f/13 unless I don’t mind starting to loose detail on a 45 MP sensor … or I am deliberately looking for an effect like sun stars… but as you say when working really close unless the image is flat then high f/stops are required.
Indeed the wildlife and birding shooters with their 600mm f/4 prime lenses sure have an investment - but then its no more than a good used 552DR … so horses for courses. I max out at 300mm f/4 prime - and that is good for me - butterflies, deer and aircraft and can be handheld and sharp even wide open 
My ‘studio’ is adhoc rather than dedicated - so quite envious of what yours sounds like 
1 Like
I am also a bit of a dinosaur, I do have a Pentax K3 III, a couple of K1 II’s and still have a couple of original K3 bodies as well as a film MX and ME Super. But I also have an Olympus OMD E-1 Mark 3 and all cameras have their own strengths and weaknesses. I took a K3 body, 16-85 and 55-300 lens with me on a recent trip to Canada as I knew it would get some rough treatment and also needed the better battery life. The K3 III is a lovely camera to use and I have my 300 F4 on it most of the time and also carry a 1.4 convertor, great for bird photography.
As for the Olympus, it was purchased as a quick carry around and I have the 12-100 F4 and the 100-400 F5-6.3. It’s great for photography in quite bright light but absolute garbage if it gets cloudy as the ISO gets even slightly higher the picture quality is awful and it eats batteries. But it’s good in certain situations and was purchased as I didn’t see the next Pentax actually being released for a while.
So I’m lucky to have a choice, the new Olympus is interesting but really not any improvement on what I already have for my needs, maybe when the next one comes out.
Tim
1 Like
The customers/consumers that Canon really seem to have let down is their M users, the DSLR lenses see to be compatible with an adapter . One that Canon seem to be proving free of charge with their latest R10 offering , the M users seem less well looked after .
As I see it the M was introduced as an in-between camera (I think they called it bridge), between DSLRs and the pocket snapshot digital cameras, giving the benefit of interchangeable lenses, and with an adaptor (which I think was included) could use any EF or EF/S lens (when the camera is dwarfed by the lenses!) I’m guessing the market didn’t take off enough to develop a more extended range of lenses, whereas the subsequent release of the R range is a direct progression from the DSLRs, with initially full frame sensors and adaptor allowing full use of EF lenses.
1 Like
An R6 for me these days. Usually with RF24-70 2.8 on the front of it. I too had an R and liked lots about it but it was a bit slow in use and you missed things. The R6 and R5 are different beasts altogether. I chose the 6 over the 5 purely for the PASM dial, the R put me right off the lack of it on the 5.
I had a play with an R3 someone lent me in the park a while back. Fantastic bit of kit but in terms of bang for buck I’m not sure it justifies a 3x price premium over the 6. He says😉
2 Likes
That’s quite a difficult question to answer, but I’ll have a go. I have recently upgraded from Nikon (D7000) to a Canon R6. My brother, who is a more serious photographer than I am has just upgraded from his Canon 7D. He tried out my R6, but decided in the end to upgrade to a Canon 5D/IV with a couple of EF mount ‘L’ series lenses.
The Canon 5D had always been on his wish list, and in the end decided that he felt more comfortable with the look and feel of a traditional DSLR rather than that of a mirrorless model. He chose the 5D/IV in the full knowledge that Canon will not be releasing any more lenses or upgrades for their full frame DSLR series and has no regrets about his choice. The photos that he takes on his 5D/IV are at least as good as the ones I take using my R6.
Incidentally, the ‘L’ series lenses that your friend used with his D7 will not be compatible with the 5D/IV, nor indeed with any full frame Canon camera. They will be designed to work with the cropped sensor of the 7D. So, if he wants to retain his high quality lenses, he might be better off purchasing one of the new Canon cropped sensor mirrorless cameras rather than a full frame Canon model.
EDIT - it is likely that his ‘L’ lenses are actually full frame EF mount lenses (which can be used with both crop factor and full frame bodies). In which case, ignore the above paragraph.
In summary,
-
the 5D/IV has a little more ‘resolution’, having a 30 Mp sensor as opposed to the 20 Mp sensor of the R6.
-
he may be able to pick up full frame EF mount ‘L’ series lenses much more cheaply on the used
market than RF mount equivalents. Mind you, EF lenses can be used pretty effectively on the R5 & R6 cameras with the edition of an adapter (for not much more than £100). I have used some of my brother’s ‘L’ series EF mount lenses with an adapter on my R6, and they perform flawlessly. -
some people still prefer using an optical viewfinder rather than the electronic viewfinders of mirrorless cameras such as the R5 & R6. For what it is worth I am very happy with the EVF on the R6.
-
The R6 is quite a bit smaller and a little lighter than the 5D/IV. This might be important to some.
-
The R6 has better low light performance than the 5D/IV, although the 5D/IV is no slouch in this regard.
-
The R6 has significantly better focus tracking performance than that of the 5D/IV. This may be of interest to some, but not really a big deal for others.
-
The R6 has significantly better video performance (particularly if he wants to shoot in 4k).
-
The range of RF mount lenses is still a little limited, but all future lens releases from Canon will be for the RF mount.
If your friend is interested in a camera for hybrid use (i.e. photos & video), then within the Canon camp I would suggest that he goes for the R6 rather than the 5D. However, if his use of the camera will be more or less exclusively for stills photography, then I would suggest that he checks out the look and feel of both the 5D/IV & R6 and goes with the one that feels ‘right’ to him. They are both great cameras.
1 Like
It’s not just the camera that’s good but it looks like you are a good photographer.
1 Like
I have a 5D4 and a 7D2 and they make a great combination. When I make the move to mirrorless it is mostly likely to be with the R6. Partly this is down to cost but also it is down to what I like to shoot, mostly stuff that moves about erratically. Also, I don’t really need the high resolution the R5 offers. So I would suggest the R6 would be a better choice, that being decent secondhand 5D4s are going for extremely little these days. You could buy one as a stopgap, keep the 7D for now and get an R6 mk2 when it is released, which is something I am considering, I expect it will be in about 2 years time.