'Upgrade' to full frame? And which camera?

[jondc]

Why is LR6 an issue?

If it's because it wont recognise Sony A7III raws you could convert them to DNG and then there should be no problem.

It is mainly because of that very reason but also a7rii is cheaper. I know you can do an extra step in the dance but not sure if you retain all the original information through a raw conversation.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Thanks for the replies everyone. Im still open-minded about what I will use the camera for, I’m still discovering...hence the need for an ‘all-rounder’. I love hiking when travelling and therefore tend to shoot landscapes mostly but want to dabble into other types.

For a similar price range I am looking at, curious to see if any of you decided not to go for full frame and instead went for a higher end APS-C before going to FF. Is there benefit to be had from me doing this instead?

Or for a similar price range have any of you opted for other brands when seriously considering Sony mirrorless FF, apart from the reason of having already invested heavily in glass so it made sense to stay with the current system?

Has anyone regretted going from APS-C to full frame, speaking in an amateur / enthusiast capacity?

I moved from APS-C to FF about 4 years ago, and for some kinds of images I'd actually really like a larger format for the shallow depth of field, reduced image magnification and the greater sense of depth that can sometimes lend an image. A few times I took my APS-C outfit away travelling while I had FF, but regretted it because image quality was lower with reduced dynamic range, increased noise and a flatter look. When I travel now I always pack FF, and would prefer a little extra weight at the time than regret having left it behind. While I *could* shoot with APS-C or even M43, it's not what I would choose for general use (we have all 3 formats in the house).

For *me* having grown up with 35mm film photography, fullframe is a great centre ground between the issues of size, weight and cost with larger formats.

 

[woof woof]

It is mainly because of that very reason but also a7rii is cheaper. I know you can do an extra step in the dance but not sure if you retain all the original information through a raw conversation.

I've never had any issues with DNG's and of course you keep the original raw file, if you have the room to keep it. I have four decent cameras, Panasonic TZ100, GX80 and GX9 and a Sony A7 and CS5 wont read any of the raw files so I have to DNG them all. I delete my original raws which may be a risk but so far and fingers crossed I've never had a problem with DNG's.

A good test could be to try it and see. It's a free exercise, only costs you time. I'm sure you'll be able to find raw files on line somewhere to download and play with if you decide it's worth trying.

 

[Cagey75]

Genuine answer - because he usually agrees with me! He knows his stuff and presents it clearly. And, obviously, he's gorgeous.

Irresponsible? That link is bang on topic, and discusses big changes that are weeks away from impacting the OP's decision. It would be irresponsible not to point that out.

Good enough He's gorgeous though?? wha? it is all just matter of opinion in end perhaps - tbh, I'm just bored with everything photography wise atm, and finding all sorts annoying, I will say I possibly find Jared Polin even more irritating than TN!

 

[HoppyUK]

Good enough He's gorgeous though?? wha? it is all just matter of opinion in end perhaps - tbh, I'm just bored with everything photography wise atm, and finding all sorts annoying, I will say I possibly find Jared Polin even more irritating than TN!

Not a matter of opinion at all He beat 16,000 entrants to officially become The Sexiest Geek Alive in 2000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Northrup

 

[Cagey75]

Not a matter of opinion at all He beat 16,000 entrants to officially become The Sexiest Geek Alive in 2000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Northrup

That is still opinion though innit? also it was 20 years ago! I certainly wouldn't say he was ugly, but I also don't think his missus is near as hot as many other do either

 

[Deleted member 49428]

I moved from APS-C to FF about 4 years ago, and for some kinds of images I'd actually really like a larger format for the shallow depth of field, reduced image magnification and the greater sense of depth that can sometimes lend an image. A few times I took my APS-C outfit away travelling while I had FF, but regretted it because image quality was lower with reduced dynamic range, increased noise and a flatter look. When I travel now I always pack FF, and would prefer a little extra weight at the time than regret having left it behind. While I *could* shoot with APS-C or even M43, it's not what I would choose for general use (we have all 3 formats in the house).

For *me* having grown up with 35mm film photography, fullframe is a great centre ground between the issues of size, weight and cost with larger formats.

Hmm i moved from 24x36 film (and 6x7 and 4x5") to apsc digital 4 years ago and thats how I feel about my current setup

 

[Will James]

Why not just a 90D. With a 10 year old camera anything will be a huge "upgrade" and by the time next camera change is due the market will have settled in. All the big players will have all the lenses for their cameras and the used market will start tu saturate.

Hi, yes that’s an option as I’d be able to use my current lenses.

Perhaps a silly question but would I notice a huge difference in image quality with a 90D if I kept the same lenses I have now? I thought most of the quality comes from the glass. And I guess the dynamic range will be a bit better than my current camera.

 

[Will James]

It really does depend on what you intend to shoot with it. I know that's just repeating comments already made.

I shoot mainly landscape type images (check my Flickr or Instagram to give you an idea)

I use an original A7 (since 2014/15) and mainly the Voigtländer 40/1.2 I also have the 21mm Voigtlander and the FE85. I reckon that's about 2 grands worth of kit if you buy sensible.

I thought the A7 kit lens 28-70mm performed pretty well stopped down a bit if you shoot landscapes that way. That's probably £600 worth? Add the 85mm to spend a grand.

Not an expensive way into FF mirrorless really. Obviously this is presuming you aren't shooting things that move quickly and face detect is enough for you.

Hi, thanks.

Depends what you mean by “quickly” - it would be either cars at a racing track otherwise I doubt I’ll be photographing other sports...my cat in the garden [emoji1]

What are the downsides of the A7 in your experience?

 

[hunnymonster]

Perhaps a silly question but would I notice a huge difference in image quality with a 90D if I kept the same lenses I have now?

Well it won't have the marks on the sensor at least - the mechanics of taking a picture will be familiar..

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

That is still opinion though innit? also it was 20 years ago! I certainly wouldn't say he was ugly, but I also don't think his missus is near as hot as many other do either

Popularity contests, eh? They seldom turn out well. Look at the one we held in Britain last year, not to mention the fiasco they had in the U.S. 4 years ago.

 

[HoppyUK]

Hi, yes that’s an option as I’d be able to use my current lenses.

Perhaps a silly question but would I notice a huge difference in image quality with a 90D if I kept the same lenses I have now? I thought most of the quality comes from the glass. And I guess the dynamic range will be a bit better than my current camera.

The extra image quality from FF comes from the sheer size, physical area, of the larger sensor. It collects more light, so shadow detail is extended (dynamic range) and high ISO performance is enhanced. Then the larger sensor requires less enlargement at final output, so resolution demands are lower and contrast increased for better sharpness - basically lenses perform better as they're not being pushed so hard.

 

[Will James]

The extra image quality from FF comes from the sheer size, physical area, of the larger sensor. It collects more light, so shadow detail is extended (dynamic range) and high ISO performance is enhanced. Then the larger sensor requires less enlargement at final output, so resolution demands are lower and contrast increased for better sharpness - basically lenses perform better as they're not being pushed so hard.

Hi, yes that’s exactly why I’m leaning towards FF, my comment was in light of the suggestion to go to a Canon 90D instead (still APS-C), and I’m not sure how much extra that would give me vs now, for the money I feel FF would give more

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

This topic has been done to the death many times on TP.

Then you go and seek advice from people here who you know will only recommend brands that they themselves own. Weird

What is wrong with folks these days?
It's a photography forum ffs, that what it's for, and that's what people do.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

Has anyone regretted going from APS-C to full frame, speaking in an amateur / enthusiast capacity?

I moved to FF from M43 at the end of last year.
I purchased a Sony A7ii with kit lens brand new for £650.
I sold the kit lens for £100 and got the 24-105mm Sony lens.
By going for the A7ii I had some funds left to buy a couple of lenses so as well as the 24-105mm in got the 85mm f1.8 Sony lens.
I haven't regretted the change (upgrade ) at all.
I will probably change the body in the future for an A7iii due to the better autofocus as I also shoot wildlife.

 

[Will James]

I moved to FF from M43 at the end of last year.
I purchased a Sony A7ii with kit lens brand new for £650.
I sold the kit lens for £100 and got the 24-105mm Sony lens.
By going for the A7ii I had some funds left to buy a couple of lenses so as well as the 24-105mm in got the 85mm f1.8 Sony lens.
I haven't regretted the change (upgrade ) at all.
I will probably change the body in the future for an A7iii due to the better autofocus as I also shoot wildlife.

Firstly, how did you get it for £650 [emoji50]?

Regarding the autofocus, is that bad on the A7ii? Which situations are you limited in for 5fps? Then I can gauge if it really matters to me or not (due to my lack of experience...)

Also do you find the battery life on the A7ii a big pain?

 

[snerkler]

Having done plenty of research on these forums, YouTube and online for reviews, I’d like to get some of your advice on what I should do next regarding my kit as I’m sure you have been through the same steps as me and I’m not sure to which extent I should upgrade l my kit at this stage.

My current kit:
Canon 500d (has for 10 years) - my first DSLR. Lenses: Sigma 17-50 2.8, Tamron 70-300, 50 1.8, 430EX II flash light, gorillapod!

I’m relatively time-poor (travel with work a lot) and don’t get as much time as I’d like to take photos and edit/go through them but when I do, I love it. Generally take landscape shots, some motorsport and also really keen to get more into portraits.

Full frame appeals to me due to the image quality, dynamic range and if I will do it as a second step in the future I might as well do it now if I can afford it and have low switching costs i.e. I don’t already have a big investment in Canon or Nikon kit)..that’s my line of thinking anyway.

From the reviews I’ve seen, there are three cameras which seem to be talked highly of for FF - Sony A7iii, Canon EOS R and Fuji XT3. My mind (heart!) tells me I want the get the Sony A7iii but given the lenses are expensive I’d have to build kit gradually over time and have just the kit lens to start with.

Feelings about my kit - I need an upgrade because
1. Camera has marks on the sensor which cannot be cleaned/repaired so I need to change cameras regardless.
2. I feel the dynamic range of my camera is very limited and my ‘workflow’ is very manual which could both be rectified by getting a FF e.g. merging bracketed exposures in lightroom. Since I’m time-poor I need to get it right first time and as much in-camera as possible.
3. I’m longing for better image quality and sharpness

What would you get (or have you got) if you were in my situation? For the time being I don’t want to spend more than ~£2k of investment, and could get additional lenses next year.

Thanks
Will

Bit late to the party so apologies if this has all been discussed but here's my thoughts having just gone through a massive system change myself.

Purely in terms of requirements and spec I would choose the A7III out of the options. Whilst the Fuji XT3 is great, landscapes is not it's forte and from my experience you get more detail from other bodies. The Canon EOS R is a very good camera indeed, and I think the system will improve very quickly, however at the moment native lenses are very expensive, more so than the competition at the moment on the whole, and also the Canon has over 1ev less DR (which you said was important) and is also worse in noise handling (2.7k vs 3.7k from DXO).

However, to throw a curve ball in there I would suggest the A7RIII as it will give those landscapes just that little bit extra. You should be able to pick one up grey/used and the 28-70mm within budget. Don't underestimate the 28-70mm, whilst it's 'only' a kit lens it is actually surprisingly sharp, especially stopped down which you'll be doing with landscapes. Another addition you could make later on to your landscape arsenal is the Samyang 18mm f2.8. No it's not the best built lens in the world but I've been impressed with the results of mine, very sharp across the frame. Just be aware that there is some sample variation.

All this being said, have you tried them? You may feel more comfortable with on over the other, in which case that could be your choice. I've toyed with moving to Sony in the past (from Nikon and Olympus) but didn't like the ergonomics. I very nearly bought into the Fuji system a couple of months ago, but the ergonomics of the XT3 didn't feel great for me, the grip is very shallow, and strangely it felt worse with the additional hand grip. I've just recently sold all my Nikon and Olympus stuff and bought the A7RIV and couldn't be happier. They've finally made the ergonomics suitable for me, and the image quality and all round usability is superb. Initially colours weren't to my suiting SOOC using any of the camera profiles in Lightroom, but I spent some time making a preset and now they're pretty much the same as my Nikon's were, which is my preference. All I do now is import with that preset and I don't have to do anything else except cropping, exposure and WB changes if they need them.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

Firstly, how did you get it for £650 [emoji50]?

Regarding the autofocus, is that bad on the A7ii? Which situations are you limited in for 5fps? Then I can gauge if it really matters to me or not (due to my lack of experience...)

Also do you find the battery life on the A7ii a big pain?

Hi,
The af is not bad at all, but with my 200-600mm in lower light or low contrast situations it can hunt a bit.
I never shoot anything other than single shot, so fps doesn't concern me.
Battery life doesn't concern me either, I have 3 batteries and a powerbank I could use if in a hide etc.

 

[LeeRatters]

Hi, thanks.

Depends what you mean by “quickly” - it would be either cars at a racing track otherwise I doubt I’ll be photographing other sports...my cat in the garden [emoji1]

What are the downsides of the A7 in your experience?

In my experience, none. Yeah, I'd like a joystick control, maybe improved high ISO for Astro, I guess an improved EVF might make manual focus better..... But not really downsides as such. Just things I might look for if/when I eventually replace it.

I think it would be okay for Motorsport if panning and your cat in the garden.

 

[AZ6]

Long time Nikon user here. 27 years, film and digital. Been shooting Nikon Digital for the last 7+ years. Bought a new Nikon Z6 last year. But if I were to be starting completely from scratch, with no lenses or other kit, I'd go for...

...a Sony. There; I've said it.

Why?? I hear you cry. Well, simply because Sony has the most mature ML camera system going. Excellent cameras, excellent range of lenses available. Nikon and Canon's systems are still relatively very new, and although they will grow quickly, a full range of 'native' lenses is still a good few years off (stuff like macros, big teles, UWAs, etc). Of course you can use older lenses with adapters, but you may well not want to do that if you're starting from scratch. But; you aren't, quite, as you have some Canon fit lenses (I'm assuming they would work with the full frame sensor cameras), and a flashgun, at least. So, Canon would seem the obvious option. Although the EOS R is a bit over your budget perhaps, so maybe the EOS RP? That body with the better 24-105mm f4 lens and EF adapter is only a teeny bit over your budget really.

For a similar price range I am looking at, curious to see if any of you decided not to go for full frame and instead went for a higher end APS-C before going to FF. Is there benefit to be had from me doing this instead?

The only advantages to APS-C are smaller, lighter kit, and longer 'reach' on lenses. Image quality is just better on full frame, end of.

 

[snerkler]

It used to be a photography forum way back when, but now it's just yet another brand promotion website.

I disagree. People will usually recommend cameras they have, or have had as they have experience with them and can offer useful information about them, it’s not “promoting” but offering experience.

This is the equipment part of the forum where you will of course get more discussion about gear, tech spec etc etc. There are other parts of the forum to discuss photography

 

[Petrochemist]

The only advantages to APS-C are smaller, lighter kit, and longer 'reach' on lenses. Image quality is just better on full frame, end of.

Them why are you not recommending medium format? All the same reasoning applies when discussing FF vs MF.

 

[AZ6]

Them why are you not recommending medium format? All the same reasoning applies when discussing FF vs MF.

Cos a medium format set up will cost a tad more than the OP's planned budget...

 

[snerkler]

.
The only advantages to APS-C are smaller, lighter kit, and longer 'reach' on lenses. Image quality is just better on full frame, end of.

You forgot generally cheaper bodies and lenses too

In terms of IQ that’s obviously assuming similar aged bodies, some modern APS-C can have better IQ than ‘relic’ FF

 

[Petrochemist]

I disagree. People will usually recommend cameras they have, or have had as they have experience with them and can offer useful information about them, it’s not “promoting” but offering experience.

This is the equipment part of the forum where you will of course get more discussion about gear, tech spec etc etc. There are other parts of the forum to discuss photography

Well said sir!

Not only is this forum not promoting a specific brand but it is very open to any brand. There's one brand specific forum I used to frequent where mentioning other brands was taboo.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

It used to be a photography forum way back when, but now it's just yet another brand promotion website.

No one forces you to come on though...

 

[ancient_mariner]

It used to be a photography forum way back when, but now it's just yet another brand promotion website.

In the nicest possible way, perhaps you should start a 'photographic' thread.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The extra image quality from FF comes from the sheer size, physical area, of the larger sensor.

In general terms, the size of a sensor is not directly related to the information collected when compared with other sizes of sensor. This is because a sensor is not like a piece of film where the grain size and distribution are the main limit to resolution for a particular format.

It collects more light, so shadow detail is extended (dynamic range) and high ISO performance is enhanced.

If the number of photosites are the same between a larger and smaller sensor and
...if the larger sensor's photosites are able to gather more photons and
...if the amplification chain for the larger sensor introduces less noise than that for the smaller sensor then
...the larger sensor is likely to give a cleaner image. If any of these conditions are not met then a particular smaller sensor may outperform a particular larger sensor.

Then the larger sensor requires less enlargement at final output

The physical size of the sensor has no direct bearing on the practical output size of a printed image. The true relationship is between the number of pixels on the sensor and the number of points that the output device can display for a given physical output size.

resolution demands are lower and contrast increased for better sharpness - basically lenses perform better as they're not being pushed so hard.

This is possibly true but... for many years it was a truism that lenses computed for smaller image sizes were capable of resolving more lines per millimetre than those designed for larger formats. One example was a series of tests run by the American magazine Popular Photography which showed that Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad resolved significantly fewer lines per millimetre than the Leitz lenses for the Leica.

Despite what advertisers would have us believe there is a much more complex relationship between sensor size and output quality in the digital sphere than there ever was in the world of silver halides.

 

[snerkler]

In general terms, the size of a sensor is not directly related to the information collected when compared with other sizes of sensor. This is because a sensor is not like a piece of film where the grain size and distribution are the main limit to resolution for a particular format.

If the number of photosites are the same between a larger and smaller sensor and
...if the larger sensor's photosites are able to gather more photons and
...if the amplification chain for the larger sensor introduces less noise than that for the smaller sensor then
...the larger sensor is likely to give a cleaner image. If any of these conditions are not met then a particular smaller sensor may outperform a particular larger sensor.

The physical size of the sensor has no direct bearing on the practical output size of a printed image. The true relationship is between the number of pixels on the sensor and the number of points that the output device can display for a given physical output size.

This is possibly true but... for many years it was a truism that lenses computed for smaller image sizes were capable of resolving more lines per millimetre than those designed for larger formats. One example was a series of tests run by the American magazine Popular Photography which showed that Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad resolved significantly fewer lines per millimetre than the Leitz lenses for the Leica.

Despite what advertisers would have us believe there is a much more complex relationship between sensor size and output quality in the digital sphere than there ever was in the world of silver halides.

Isn’t part of the IQ simply how much you’re enlarging the image to see the final result, so whatever you’re viewing on an APS-C will need to be enlarged 1.5x more than FF (1.6x for canon).

 

[ancient_mariner]

Isn’t part of the IQ simply how much you’re enlarging the image to see the final result, so whatever you’re viewing on an APS-C will need to be enlarged 1.5x more than FF (1.6x for canon).

When all things are equal: i.e. the sensors are of same resolution and so are the lenses attached then yes, that's true. Since until recently all the very best lenses for DSLRs were these same for both crop and FF cameras then a FF sensor image of the same number of pixels would always beat a crop image in terms of resolution and detail.

 

[HoppyUK]

In general terms, the size of a sensor is not directly related to the information collected when compared with other sizes of sensor. This is because a sensor is not like a piece of film where the grain size and distribution are the main limit to resolution for a particular format.

If the number of photosites are the same between a larger and smaller sensor and
...if the larger sensor's photosites are able to gather more photons and
...if the amplification chain for the larger sensor introduces less noise than that for the smaller sensor then
...the larger sensor is likely to give a cleaner image. If any of these conditions are not met then a particular smaller sensor may outperform a particular larger sensor.

The physical size of the sensor has no direct bearing on the practical output size of a printed image. The true relationship is between the number of pixels on the sensor and the number of points that the output device can display for a given physical output size.

This is possibly true but... for many years it was a truism that lenses computed for smaller image sizes were capable of resolving more lines per millimetre than those designed for larger formats. One example was a series of tests run by the American magazine Popular Photography which showed that Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad resolved significantly fewer lines per millimetre than the Leitz lenses for the Leica.

Despite what advertisers would have us believe there is a much more complex relationship between sensor size and output quality in the digital sphere than there ever was in the world of silver halides.

To repeat then, all of the image quality benefits of larger sensors derive from their physically greater area, either directly or indirectly (but they are inseparable). Obviously you have to compare like with like generations of technology, but when that is done, the larger format always wins - as it always has, including with film.

 

[woof woof]

To repeat then, all of the image quality benefits of larger sensors derive from their physically greater area, either directly or indirectly (but they are inseparable). Obviously you have to compare like with like generations of technology, but when that is done, the larger format always wins - as it always has, including with film.

I wonder how big we'll see mass market sensors, if we can still call photography with cameras as we think of them mass market. Maybe with current tech it'll never be economic but maybe at some point there'll be a technology that could make it possible.

Just wondering

 

[snerkler]

I wonder how big we'll see mass market sensors, if we can still call photography with cameras as we think of them mass market. Maybe with current tech it'll never be economic but maybe at some point there'll be a technology that could make it possible.

Just wondering

I think the way images are captured will be very different in the future, maybe not even requiring sensors at all

 

[HoppyUK]

Isn’t part of the IQ simply how much you’re enlarging the image to see the final result, so whatever you’re viewing on an APS-C will need to be enlarged 1.5x more than FF (1.6x for canon).

It's not so much that the larger format image is being enlarged less, but how much more data is recorded on it to be enlarged.

More light/photons, that's pretty obvious and benefits both dynamic range and ISO performance. Less obvious, though probably the most significant IQ factor for most of us, is increased sharpness. That's derived from lens MTF (Modulation Transfer Function = sharpness) performance - as resolution demands go up with smaller formats, so image contrast (the most important aspect for visual perception of sharpness) goes down. That always happens, fact of physics, and it creates a big gap that has yet to be bridged by any manufacturer.

And we shouldn't forget the greater scope for depth-of-field control that larger formats provide.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

To repeat then, all of the image quality benefits of larger sensors derive from their physically greater area, either directly or indirectly (but they are inseparable). Obviously you have to compare like with like generations of technology, but when that is done, the larger format always wins - as it always has, including with film.

The relationship between sensor size and information stored is tenuous in the digital world. It is possible that a larger sensor will aquire more data than a smaller one but only if a number of criteria are met. In real world situations the difference between sensors can be very subtle even where the physical difference in size is large.

 

[HoppyUK]

The relationship between sensor size and information stored is tenuous in the digital world.

No it isn't.

It is possible that a larger sensor will aquire more data than a smaller one

Yes, always.

but only if a number of criteria are met.

Obviously. Comparing apples with oranges is pointless - which is what you've been doing.

In real world situations the difference between sensors can be very subtle even where the physical difference in size is large.

One man's subtlety is another man's clear and obvious - and worth paying for.

 

[snerkler]

That's derived from lens MTF (Modulation Transfer Function = sharpness) performance - as resolution demands go up with smaller formats, so image contrast (the most important aspect for visual perception of sharpness) goes down. That always happens, fact of physics, and it creates a big gap that has yet to be bridged by any manufacturer.
.

Interesting. I would assume then that this may also account for why some see FF as having more depth/pop/3D quality?

 

[Will James]

But; you aren't, quite, as you have some Canon fit lenses (I'm assuming they would work with the full frame sensor cameras), and a flashgun, at least. So, Canon would seem the obvious option. Although the EOS R is a bit over your budget perhaps, so maybe the EOS RP? That body with the better 24-105mm f4 lens and EF adapter is only a teeny bit over your budget really.

If I went to an EOS R or RP, I could use my EF-S lenses by getting an adapter (£100); if I went to a 5d or 6d I can’t. However, I assume using the adapter would mean shooting in crop mode and therefore limited. I don’t understand how the adapter works as it’s the same one for EF (FF) and EF-S (crop) lenses.

I would probably want to get some better glass anyway, so it would be merely a short term benefit getting a Canon R/RP in order to keep my current glass whilst saving for new. Due to the prices of the RF mount lenses, I would end up only affording EF lenses to use on the adapter...so it doesn’t feel right.

 

[twist]

I hadn’t considered the EOS R or RP previously, so thanks for mentioning it.

If I went to an EOS R or RP, I could use my EF-S lenses by getting an adapter (£100); if I went to a 5d or 6d I can’t. However, I assume using the adapter would mean shooting in crop mode and therefore limited. I don’t understand how the adapter works as it’s the same one for EF (FF) and EF-S (crop) lenses.

I would probably want to get some better glass anyway, so it would be merely a short term benefit getting a Canon R/RP in order to keep my current glass whilst saving for new. Due to the prices of the RF mount lenses, I would end up only affording EF lenses to use on the adapter...so it doesn’t feel right.

The R/RP comes bundled with the adapter, you dont need to buy one. Correct, you will be shooting in crop mode, it wont be limited, it will produce what your lenses were designed to do but with the benefit of being able to use them with AF on a FF sensor at reduced megapixels.

If you havent decided what youre going to shoot you wont know what lenses you will need for any system or the costs involved.

 

[Will James]

The Canon EOS R is a very good camera indeed, and I think the system will improve very quickly, however at the moment native lenses are very expensive, more so than the competition at the moment on the whole, and also the Canon has over 1ev less DR (which you said was important) and is also worse in noise handling (2.7k vs 3.7k from DXO).

I was going to say I could wait a few months to see what happened to the prices of the canon RP or R mount cameras and lenses to see if the prices come towards the Sony but you’ve highlighted that the Sony is superior for DR and noise handling. Why have Canon priced the lenses so high, it seems like they are betting on keeping the Canon loyal customers who have invested heavily into Canon lenses and will have no choice but to switch to the R/RP rather than a dull switch to Sony?

However, to throw a curve ball in there I would suggest the A7RIII as it will give those landscapes just that little bit extra. You should be able to pick one up grey/used and the 28-70mm within budget. Don't underestimate the 28-70mm, whilst it's 'only' a kit lens it is actually surprisingly sharp, especially stopped down which you'll be doing with landscapes. Another addition you could make later on to your landscape arsenal is the Samyang 18mm f2.8. No it's not the best built lens in the world but I've been impressed with the results of mine, very sharp across the frame. Just be aware that there is some sample variation.

I’m not sure my 2012 MacBook will be able to handle 42MP files from an A7Rii/A7Riii it’s slow enough already [emoji1] and to be honest, do I need to go to A7R, wouldn’t the A7ii or A7iii be more than enough camera for me (amateur/enthusiast hoping to grow my skills)

All this being said, have you tried them? You may feel more comfortable with on over the other, in which case that could be your choice.

No I haven’t yet, indeed I do need to try the various cameras out and will