When the R was released at the end of 2019 I had spent some time trying to decide which full frame Canon DSLR to get to replace my then ageing 500D with APS-C sensor. All choices were compromised in some way, then appeared the R - it’ specification perfectly matched my key parameters, so I bought mine early in 2019. I knew that there would be more to come, but chose to be an early adopter because of the timing. I drool over the specs of some of the later ones, but my choice was made, and I can’t afford to replace just because something better comes along (just like hifi!).
I had mine converted to full spectrum a year later (there’s a thread on that), and I likely will live with it for the next 10 years or so. Whether I replace then is anyone’s guess - in part it will depend on whether I’m still up for lugging it around - the R may be significantly lighter than a DSLR, but decent lenses add a little…
Your system may be slightly simpler, but appears from thise photos to be much the same size - the speakers including stands very similar to previous floorstanders, and the same rack with stuff on it…
Regarding cameras, from my first move to Canon SLR back in the 1990s, small and light has always been a choice factor for me. However with lenses in particular there is a trade off between picture quality and size/weight of lens, and choice has to be on what someone wants to photograph. I bought the 100-400 last year, and on a safari holiday earlier this year (which is what I bought it for) I was so pleased that I had it - it is heavy, but was worth it. With a light R body I can carry it, body and another lens) out and about in belt bags happily enough - but when I don’t need the quality I take a pocket camera.
The boxes have gone from seven to four , most importantly the rat’s nest of very confusing cables has gone and the speakers have gone from 20 kgs plus to around 5 kgs.
If I move , it will go to a Star and a TT with inbuilt phone stage .
I found the 100-400 to be very heavy , especially with two cameras , binoculars etc. The 300 F4 produced really good results on Safari at far less weight
Where we were on safari I was swapping between the 100-400 outside the bush and 24-105 when we went in (even 24mm too long a focal length when a charging elephant stops just in front of the vehicle!) Sometimes I wished I had a 500 or 600! But only one camera body which saves the weight difference between 70-300L and 100-400L, while my binos are snall and light (Leica 10x25)
But it is all horses for courses, as they say - I was tempted by a Nikon that I saw a few years ago with a zoom range equivalent to something like 25-2500 in 35mm terms. The photographic equivalent of al all-in-one - but I quality concerns stopped me. Whether that was the right decision is another matter!
Your EF glass fits onto a spacer that compensates for the relative lack of body depth on the mirrorless Canons, if that is the way you want to go. (ie. you do not have to buy RF lenses.)
That said, I would imagine AF through a EF100-400mm would be quicker with a 1DX series body, more muscular battery etc.
Yes that was what I was referring to in an earlier post, a version of the adaptor (spacer) that accepts drop-in filters, so anyone who uses filters only needs one set regardless of lens front element sizes, and no matter what, the focal length, even ultrawide. And a real boon with a polariser due to fingertip rotation, even if there’s a deep lens hood on a long lens.
The RF lenses, on the other hand, allow shorter and lighter lens-body combinations - and without a flipping mirror they can take clip-in filters inside the body, with much the same benefit as above - something that I don’t think had been developed when I bought my R, or I may have gone a different direction… sadly I’m not gifted with clairvoyant abilities!
That can only be by comparison with what you’re used to - and varies by lens anyway, so if, any camera is “in balance” with a 50mm it’ll be out of balance with a 200 (or whatever)…
If you’re using an EF lens and think of the adaptor as part of the body (to which you leave it attached when changing for another EF lens), it simply makes the body the same depth as a DSLR - so not lengthening the lens at all!
And, at least with Canon (I don’t know about other brands), all lenses since introduction of the EOS -EF fit continue to be usable with no penalty relative to on a DSLR.
Thanks for this information, having just carried my Canon DSLR and lenses along a few hikes in Scotland, and suffered from that weight, I am now investigating how to lighten the load, and although all my gear is Canon I am quite prepared to change brand for landscape work, and keep the Canon for short walks, ultimately its about picking the right tool for the job as I see it
I came to that view having carried some substantive camera gear on safari and to air shows, I tried out a Canon 4000 , the smallest, lightest and cheapest .
Having read this post /thread I decided to see about a Canon R10 .
