What to buy?

[harper]

I presently use a Canon EOS 700 D which is permanently on a Canon 100-400 mm ES L lens and a Sony a77 11 with a Tamron 18-270 mm.
I take photographs of most things but mainly airshow photography, vehicles such as cars, trains, tractors, bikes with some portrait, landscapes and wildlife as well.

I would like to upgrade what I have, I find having two cameras are useful at airshows, I couldn't cope with a third. I have looked at the Canon 5D (latest model, iv) and the Sony a9 (latest model, 111(?))
There doesn't seem to be too many full frame new lens options for the 5D as there's a definite switch to mirrorless. I also own a Fuji S602Z bridge camera, I think the autofocus on it is quick enough for fast moving jets but the viewfinder/ screen is far too sluggish, same issue with the a7. I have always like the idea of going Nikon.

 

[ancient_mariner]

FWIW IF you choose to go mirrorless, Canon lenses and Sony DSLR lenses can be adapted to work with mirrorless cameras, often with full AF. Sony mirrorless cameras can also with with Canon DSLR lenses through the Sigma MC11 adapter.

It might be worth upgrading one camera/system at a time. Also before you upgrade/change system, try to be clear about what it is you want to upgrade with you kit - just going out and buying 'new/shiny' can lead to disappointment if it doesn't do what you want.

 

[Phil V]

I’d reiterate the above about shiny and new.
Particularly as per your remark about ‘new’ canon lenses. A 5dIV will do everything you could ever need with some amazing lenses that have been about for years.

I would though, always recommend that if someone wants a 2 camera setup, then 2 identical cameras is the way to do it. Unless the needs from the cameras are vastly different ie video and landscape.

So you’ll know whether you prefer the idea of Canon or Sony, start by upgrading one of the bodies so they’re both the same family. If you want to move to Nikon you’re adding an extra step (and I can’t understand why anyone shoots Nikon)

And remember if you decide to go full frame that 100-400 might not be long enough any more.

 

[woof woof]

There doesn't seem to be too many full frame new lens options for the 5D as there's a definite switch to mirrorless. I also own a Fuji S602Z bridge camera, I think the autofocus on it is quick enough for fast moving jets but the viewfinder/ screen is far too sluggish, same issue with the a7. I have always like the idea of going Nikon.

I find this a bit strange. I have an ancient original A7 and on a resent trip to the Lake District a Typhoon flew over us incredibly low. I didn't get a picture as there just wasn't time to change my camera setting but I did get a good look at the plane in my evf so I wonder what went wrong for you and what A7 model you were using?

 

[harper]

I’d reiterate the above about shiny and new.
Particularly as per your remark about ‘new’ canon lenses. A 5dIV will do everything you could ever need with some amazing lenses that have been about for years.

I would though, always recommend that if someone wants a 2 camera setup, then 2 identical cameras is the way to do it. Unless the needs from the cameras are vastly different ie video and landscape.

So you’ll know whether you prefer the idea of Canon or Sony, start by upgrading one of the bodies so they’re both the same family. If you want to move to Nikon you’re adding an extra step (and I can’t understand why anyone shoots Nikon)

And remember if you decide to go full frame that 100-400 might not be long enough any more.

Would going Nikon be the better option?

I do think I need a larger lens and going for a fixed telephoto 400mm F2.8 lens( as mention by someone else ?) doesn't work. You need a telephoto as your subject changes distance.
It doesn't bother me having two different makes, the 700d has spent 98% of it's time with me on the 100-400 EF L lens.
I'm quite happy with the Canon and Sony but now I can afford it I would like to upgrade. My old stuff must be worth something?

Going full frame what telephoto zoom lens would I need 100-500mm, 200-600mm?

 

[harper]

I find this a bit strange. I have an ancient original A7 and on a resent trip to the Lake District a Typhoon flew over us incredibly low. I didn't get a picture as there just wasn't time to change my camera setting but I did get a good look at the plane in my evf so I wonder what went wrong for you and what A7 model you were using?

It's always been the same from new. If you take a photo of a plane on continuous shooting the screen goes blank and by the time it comes back the plane has gone. However with the Canon even when the shutter is released and your view is interrupted monetarily you can still frame for the next shot. There doesn't seem to be much sync between the electronic screen and shutter speed on the Sony or Fuji, is the Sony a9 mk3 with it's global shutter better in this respect? Would a Sony a7 V be the same as my a77mk2?

 

[ancient_mariner]

Would going Nikon be the better option?

If you already have Cann and Sony equipment, it's very hard to see why you would consider going Nikon unless you have a desire to obtain as many incompatible systems as possible. It's possibly the last mainstream system I'd look at unless you want to sell everything and start again.

Which ever system you pick, long tele-zooms are going to be very limited for mirrorless, and fairly expensive.

In your situation I'd look at a Sony A7III or IV + kit 28-70 Sony 70-350 for your 'normal focal lengths - the older A7 I and II were slower to focus and had smaller batteries than the A7III and later. For blackout-free shooting you want the Sony A1 plus 200-600.

 

[GreenNinja67]

If you already have Cann and Sony equipment, it's very hard to see why you would consider going Nikon unless you have a desire to obtain as many incompatible systems as possible. It's possibly the last mainstream system I'd look at unless you want to sell everything and start again.

Which ever system you pick, long tele-zooms are going to be very limited for mirrorless, and fairly expensive.

In your situation I'd look at a Sony A7III or IV + kit 28-70 Sony 70-350 for your 'normal focal lengths - the older A7 I and II were slower to focus and had smaller batteries than the A7III and later. For blackout-free shooting you want the Sony A1 plus 200-600.

Or save yourself thousands and get an OM1 mk2 and long lens.

 

[harper]

If you already have Cann and Sony equipment, it's very hard to see why you would consider going Nikon unless you have a desire to obtain as many incompatible systems as possible. It's possibly the last mainstream system I'd look at unless you want to sell everything and start again.

Which ever system you pick, long tele-zooms are going to be very limited for mirrorless, and fairly expensive.

In your situation I'd look at a Sony A7III or IV + kit 28-70 Sony 70-350 for your 'normal focal lengths - the older A7 I and II were slower to focus and had smaller batteries than the A7III and later. For blackout-free shooting you want the Sony A1 plus 200-600.

Thanks for your reply.

I don't mind starting a fresh, my Canon camera is getting old, the lens it sits on is much older and the Sony I have, isn't far behind. The Tamron lens is aging and needs moving on while it has some value.

I had been thinking about the Sony A7 IV lately or would the A7 V be better option.

Would I have a better set up with a Nikon D780/D850 and a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm than my Canon 700d and EF100-400mm?

 

[Phil V]

You need a telephoto as your subject changes distance.

That’s not a feature of a ‘telephoto’ which is a longer focal length, a lens that changes focal length is called a zoom lens Well done though, most people make the opposite mistake.

Would going Nikon be the better option?

Define ‘better’.
You’ll have difficulty finding a bad camera, but if you’re looking for the best, Nikon probably won’t be the top of a list, but the ‘better’ question remains.

but now I can afford it I would like to upgrade.

Whilst upgrading just because you can afford it is fine, you’re missing the point. What do you want your gear to do better than your current?
What’s your budget?
Are you looking for 2 new bodies?
And lenses too?

There’s dozens of options
Are you looking to stay with DSLR or go mirrorless
FF or crop

Going full frame what telephoto zoom lens would I need 100-500mm, 200-600mm?

To keep a similar max focal length, you’ll need 600mm
If you want to go longer and also improve IQ, things get expensive

Canon does a free trial scheme, worth having a go with a modern body to see how far tech has come, try an R7 and an adaptor for your current 100-400, and try the new R6II with a 100-500 too. But take some time to set them up

It’s also difficult to address some of these questions, but honestly using 2 identical bodies is massively easier than switching models, I couldn’t contemplate switching brands mid shoot.

 

[Phil V]

A second hand R6 is about a grand, 2 of them is a great setup, whilst it’s easy to find ‘better’, these are head and shoulders the best cameras I’ve ever owned in 40 yrs of photography

 

[the black fox]

Hmmm I’m a bird photographer so need fast equipment I have used Olympus for several years which is a good option OM1 +300mm f4 +1.4 t.c giving 840mm equivalent reach and fast focus with built in plane I.d.
But I have also recently bought a Nikon D500 just as a back up camera and added a Tamron 150-600 g2 to it yesterday also a very fast rig ..
if buying used buy from somewhere like Wex that has a change of mind built into the purchase .. both cameras are fairly complex so will take time to get the best from

 

[snerkler]

It's always been the same from new. If you take a photo of a plane on continuous shooting the screen goes blank and by the time it comes back the plane has gone. However with the Canon even when the shutter is released and your view is interrupted monetarily you can still frame for the next shot. There doesn't seem to be much sync between the electronic screen and shutter speed on the Sony or Fuji, is the Sony a9 mk3 with it's global shutter better in this respect? Would a Sony a7 V be the same as my a7mk2?

I had the A77 II and don't recall it being particularly sluggish, there certainly wasn't a long blackout. It can shoot at 12fps so blackout should be minimal, I wonder if there's something in the settings that needs changing?

With regards to changing systems I agree with everything that's been said previously, don't 'upgrade' just because you have money to burn, first work out why you want to upgrade and this might then give you a better idea of what you want and which way to go. I agree with Phil V in that if you're running two camera then having two the same, or at least two that are nearly identical in terms of function and button placement would be recommended.

In terms of Sony vs Canon vs Nikon, one isn't better than the other. All have pros and cons and will be purely down to preference. Some will prefer Canon and recommend those, some will prefer Sony etc.

I've shot with all the main systems (Sony, Nikon, Olympus, and Fuji) but never Canon. I made the switch to Sony mirrorless because at the time Canon and Nikon's systems weren't very mature and I wanted to use native lenses, i.e. don't need an adapter to work. Also Sony opened up their mount to third party meaning that third party lenses can work flawlessly giving you more and cheaper options. The only caveats is that third party lenses can 'only' shoot at 15fps and you can't use TC's when mounted on Sony mirrorless.

If I was to choose now it'd be a tougher decision and Canon and Nikon have come on in leaps and bounds and have a lot more native lenses. I do think I'd still choose Sony at the moment as for a number of lenses that I use the Sony ones are smaller and lighter than the Canon and Nikon equivalents. For example the Sony 50mm f1.2 is 778g, Canon's is 950g, and Nikon's is HUGE and weighs 1090g.

As for the Sony A9III this is a great camera and the first ever FF camera to offer a global shutter and offers some class leading performance, however you need to ask yourself if you need them. For example, it can shoot at 120fps, now I can't imagine a time when I'd need that. My camera can shoot at 30fps and I only use this speed once in a blue moon, I'm usually shooting at 15fps or 20fps.

Sony's best all rounder is probably the A1 Mark II, however that's a whopping £6300 or £5300 grey. The orignal A1 is still an epic camera and can offer more than most people need.

As you mention blackout between frames several cameras offer completely blackout free shooting, the Sony A9, A9 II, A9 III, A1 and A1 II offer blackout free shooting. Canon and Nikon also have cameras that can shoot blackout free but I'm not sure which ones.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Would I have a better set up with a Nikon D780/D850 and a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm than my Canon 700d and EF100-400mm?

They're both old tech - good cameras, but last of line models. The D850 also weighs over a kilo, which is ridiculous.

As Phil said, there aren't any bad cameras now, but features vary and you should research to see what aspects work best for your needs. I've had an A7III for 7 years now, and it doesn't need replacing yet.

 

[harper]

How well would a Canon R5 my EF 100-400MM L lens and a tele/converter work, what are the pros and cons?

 

[Phil V]

How well would a Canon R5 my EF 100-400MM L lens and a tele/converter work, what are the pros and cons?

Canon EF lenses work as well if not better on their mirrorless cameras.
The only con is that the adaptor makes the lenses appear larger (it’s obviously the exact same distance from sensor to the end of the lens), I don’t find this an issue with longer lenses, but I did end up replacing all my shorter focal lengths with RF versions.
I still own EF 135, 70-200 and 150-600

 

[Phil V]

How well would a Canon R5 my EF 100-400MM L lens and a tele/converter work, what are the pros and cons?

You can try it for free, book it for next weekend here

Test Canon Cameras & Lenses Free for 48 Hours

Try Canon cameras and lenses free for 48 hours with next day delivery. No commitment — just the kit you want, when you want it.

testdrive.trythekit.com

Don’t forget to add the rf adaptor
They’ll deliver it Friday and pick it up Monday. All for free (deposit required)
The free loan is 24 hrs but only counts working days, so bh weekends are a treat and Christmas gets really silly

The R5 is a lot of camera; what’s putting you off the R6?
Genuinely apart from the build, the R6 at launch was comparable in speed and IQ to a 1dxIII which was >£5k

 

[woof woof]

It's always been the same from new. If you take a photo of a plane on continuous shooting the screen goes blank and by the time it comes back the plane has gone. However with the Canon even when the shutter is released and your view is interrupted monetarily you can still frame for the next shot. There doesn't seem to be much sync between the electronic screen and shutter speed on the Sony or Fuji, is the Sony a9 mk3 with it's global shutter better in this respect? Would a Sony a7 V be the same as my a7mk2?

I see what you mean now. I thought you meant the sceen/efv couldn't keep up.

 

[harper]

I see what you mean now. I thought you meant the sceen/efv couldn't keep up.

I've got a bit wrong ,there sorry. It happens in normal shooting mode, continuous shooting there isn't any problem however on the Sony unlike the Canon continuous shooting is a mode like "sport/closeup/portrait etc., not sure how you combined it manual mode?

 

[snerkler]

I've got a bit wrong ,there sorry. It happens in normal shooting mode, continuous shooting there isn't any problem however on the Sony unlike the Canon continuous shooting is a mode like "sport/closeup/portrait etc., not sure how you combined it manual mode?

I never use(d) those mode, just M, A, and S. You can set continuous shooting up in the drive menu.

Help Guide | Drive Mode

You can set the drive mode, such as continuous or self-timer shooting.

helpguide.sony.net

 

[harper]

@Phil V
Not really looked at the R6, I have been looking at the Nikon Z8.
Problem is the weight most telephoto zoom lens camera is twice of what I'm using apart from the Sony A7 iv
and a Sony 150-600 G lens.
Great idea to try for free and I did think of hiring a set up, if that's possible?
Looking into it is stressful, much simpler years ago.

 

[Phil V]

@Phil V
Not really looked at the R6, I have been looking at the Nikon Z8.
Problem is the weight most telephoto zoom lens camera is twice of what I'm using apart from the Sony A7 iv
and a Sony 150-600 G lens.
Great idea to try for free and I did think of hiring a set up, if that's possible?
Looking into it is stressful, much simpler years ago.

I mentioned the R6 as you’d mentioned the R5. Slightly smaller and lighter, much cheaper due to the lower res.

I can’t comment on the z8 specifically, but I’d say the focussing on the mirrorless Canons is better than the Nikons.

Nikon have the advantage of 3rd party lenses which we don’t have for Canon RF.

But if you’re concerned with weight, the R7 with your current 100-400 is possibly the answer, and that’d be the first thing I’d try out in your shoes.

 

[snerkler]

@Phil V
Not really looked at the R6, I have been looking at the Nikon Z8.
Problem is the weight most telephoto zoom lens camera is twice of what I'm using apart from the Sony A7 iv
and a Sony 150-600 G lens.
Great idea to try for free and I did think of hiring a set up, if that's possible?
Looking into it is stressful, much simpler years ago.

I assume you mean the Sony 200-600mm? If so Canon do a 100-500mm which is nearly 1kg lighter than the Sony and is actually the same weight as the Sony 100-400mm. Canon also do a 200-800mm which is a bit lighter than the Sony 200-600mm and of course you get 200mm more reach.

I love the Sony system but they are lacking a bit in the telephoto lenses compared to others.

 

[taxboy]

There's lots of good advice here already but photo gear is always a compromise...even if you have deep pockets. Rather than add to the actual maker / lens confusion, I recommend writing down your actual priorities e.g.
What can't my current equipment do that I would like it to do ? What do I most take photos of ? What's the weight of my current set up and how much lighter would I like it to be? How much am I prepared to spend ? What focal length range do I want and in one lens or more ?
If you then rank these in order it should help you determine your priorities and create a short list

As an example I have a Canon R7, which with the crop sensor helps with photographing wildlife if you can't get as close as you would like. However the crop sensor potentially requires wider lenses for landscape photography (I know you can use any lens for landscape but as a rule of thumb wider is more commonly used). I had to make this decision as I couldn't justify the purchase of two bodies

 

[harper]

Would the R7 improve the quality of my images?
My 700d and 100-400 EF L lens probably doesn't warrant being changed or ownership as it does get much use.. My main camera is the Sony A77 which which I have more or less
have decided to change that for a Sony A7 iv. As for lens/lenses I'm not sure. I would like a Sony G lens and the Tamron is very useful.

Image taken with the Canon outfit, the following image was slightly better. I would like a add a sample image of the Sony setup, but the file was large. Cropping it alter the image.
The one thing I have learned over the last 30 plus years of trying to take a photograph is the sun makes a big difference. Sometimes heat distortion is an issue.

 

[snerkler]

Would the R7 improve the quality of my images?
My 700d and 100-400 EF L lens probably doesn't warrant being changed or ownership as it does get much use.. My main camera is the Sony A77 which which I have more or less have decided to change that for a Sony A7 iv. As for lens/lenses I'm not sure. I would like a Sony G lens and the Tamron is very useful.View attachment 455749

Cameras don’t change image quality a great deal (if we’re talking same size sensor), there’s been an improvement in noise handling but otherwise you’ll not see a big difference.

Where newer cameras help is making it easier to get the shot due to improved autofocus systems and other bells and whistles. Also another big difference between the 700d and R7 is the viewfinder, there’s R7 is more akin to your A77 in that what you see is what you get.

Lenses make a bigger difference to IQ, newer lenses tend to be sharper, have better coatings, and less flaws such as CA’s.

 

[Phil V]

Would the R7 improve the quality of my images?
My 700d and 100-400 EF L lens probably doesn't warrant being changed or ownership as it does get much use.. My main camera is the Sony A77 which which I have more or less
have decided to change that for a Sony A7 iv. As for lens/lenses I'm not sure. I would like a Sony G lens and the Tamron is very useful.

Image quality?
Have we finally got to the point of your upgrade.
We’ll skip past the Canon as it seems you’re more keen to keep it, but the mki 100-400 isn’t the best IQ wise. The mkII is better, and better still is the RF200-500.

Your Sony sensor is being let down by the Tamron superzoom if you’re really after an IQ improvement. So any newer mirrorless FF with a better lens would definitely improve the IQ for your walkabout shooting. But you’re self sabotaging if you insist on using a consumer superzoom.

But as above; the bigger difference from the latest cameras is the usability, the focus system on the new Canons is like witchcraft, Sony is similar, the Nikons is better than their DSLR’s but not so good.
All other brands are perfectly usable, but the Canon/Sony are genuinely next level.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

The image 'attached' was panned, no IQ upgrade will improve this unless your panning technique is good.

ie average panning technique and latest and greatest camera gear will result in a less good quality image than excellent panning technique with legacy equipment.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Your Sony sensor is being let down by the Tamron superzoom if you’re really after an IQ improvement. So any newer mirrorless FF with a better lens would definitely improve the IQ for your walkabout shooting. But you’re self sabotaging if you insist on using a consumer superzoom.

This by the bucketful - image quality similar to a superzoom compact of the same era. I have a Sigma 18-250 sat on the shelf here that I don't feel comfy selling because of the image quality. The kit 18-55 is significantly better optically, to the point where I stopped using the superzoom on holiday in Canada.

 

[harper]

@snerkler
"Lenses make a bigger difference to IQ, newer lenses tend to be sharper, have better coatings, and less flaws such as CA’s."

Surely with an increase in Megapixels it must make some difference with image quality?

The image 'attached' was panned, no IQ upgrade will improve this unless your panning technique is good.

ie average panning technique and latest and greatest camera gear will result in a less good quality image than excellent panning technique with legacy equipment.

Not sure how I can improve my panning technique?
I can consistently keep the subject more less centralised within the frame, I use to shoot clay pigeons, which helped with panning.

Maybe I should start another thread, "how can I improve on that image?"

 

[harper]

@Phil V

I have thought that for some time but the zoom range is so useful.

Personally I would only upgrade to get better quality images, my Fuji S602Zoom takes really good images and that's a museum piece.
I'm not actually keen on keeping my Canon telephoto zoom lens and at the time of purchase there wasn't anything better that I was aware of. I've had it a long time.

I have read that the Canon RF200-500 isn't as well made as Canon EF lenses.

Thank you Phil and everyone else for your much appreciate replies and advice I'm taking it on board.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Surely with an increase in Megapixels it must make some difference with image quality?

Most lenses are out-resolved by sensors, even at 20mp. I've only had a couple of lenses that got near to matching the sensor of my A7III, and one of those is the 50 f1.2 GM, which is possibly the best resolving FF lens ever made. Higher pixel counts can make an image look smoother, especially if cropped tight, but otherwise don't bring too much apart from marketing.

DXO used to do a resolution value for all the lenses they tested, and it would be quite revealing.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Not sure how I can improve my panning technique?

It depends what caused the blur on that plane, but if it was camera shake, many modern lenses and mirrorless bodies have anti-shake systems built in. That can be a real asset if trying to hand hold a 400mm lens at 1/125.

 

[snerkler]

But as above; the bigger difference from the latest cameras is the usability, the focus system on the new Canons is like witchcraft, Sony is similar, the Nikons is better than their DSLR’s but not so good.

I'm surprised by that, I was led to believe cameras like the Z8 and Z9 had impreccable AF

@snerkler
"Lenses make a bigger difference to IQ, newer lenses tend to be sharper, have better coatings, and less flaws such as CA’s."

Surely with an increase in Megapixels it must make some difference with image quality?

Not sure how I can improve my panning technique?
I can consistently keep the subject more less centralised within the frame, I use to shoot clay pigeons, which helped with panning.

Maybe I should start another thread, "how can I improve on that image?"

Megapixels can make a difference but it might not be what you think. Firstly it will depend on your viewing medium, for example a 4k screen is 'only' 8.3mp so it doesn't matter if you shoot on a 24mp camera or a 61mp camera, the 4k screen can still only show 8.3mp. Even with prints there's some good videos on youtube showing prints on A1 (I think, could be A2) and they can't see any difference in detail between two different cameras that have different megapixels and different sensor sizes.

High megapixles can give a better image is some extreme situations, but mainly people have high resolution cameras to allow them to crop the image. I often have to crop my wildlife and motorsport images, sometimes maybe down to a 1/3 of their size, on occasion even less. If I reduce my 50mp shots to 1/3 of their size I'll end up with a 5.6mp image, if I did this on a 24mp camera I'd end up with a 2.7mp image.

I can't comment on your panning technique but that image you posted does look very soft. This could just be the way it's been uploaded, it could be the quality of the lens, but it could also be the quality of panning. Without seeing the original files it's hard to say. I would hazard a guess and say it's more likely the first two factors as it doesn't look like you're panning with a particularly slow shutter speed.

 

[Phil V]

I'm surprised by that, I was led to believe cameras like the Z8 and Z9 had impreccable AF

They do

 

[Phil V]

Surely with an increase in Megapixels it must make some difference with image quality?

As above
The increase in megapixels will amplify any lens imperfections. That’s just physics. More megapixels means you need better lenses.

 

[harper]

@snerkler
Possibly panned with a low shutter speed due aperture and light availability, limitations. Two things I try to avoid are a dull dark fuselage and a sharp background.
I don't seem to have any good results with spot metering, usually partial or centre. but usually meter of a bright blade of grass/object (in A,P,S mode then switch to M) at the display line and use manual mode.

I will work on that, keeping a higher shutter speed in the future.
Thanks for that.

 

[harper]

Just heard there's a R6 111 and a R7 11 coming out this summer.

 

[snerkler]

@snerkler
Possibly panned with a low shutter speed due aperture and light availability, limitations. Two things I try to avoid are a dull dark fuselage and a sharp background.
I don't seem to have any good results with spot metering, usually partial or centre. but usually meter of a bright blade of grass/object (in A,P,S mode then switch to M) at the display line and use manual mode.

I will work on that, keeping a higher shutter speed in the future.
Thanks for that.

The reason I said it didn't look like a particularly slow shutter speed had been used is there's not a deal of 'movement' in the background, can you remember what you used?

If you want sharp shots then you can use shutter speeds of 1/1000 and faster, however it won't show any movement of the background. Not an issue if the plane is in the sky, but on a shot like the one you posted it's arguably better to show movement of the background. With practice you can get sharp shots with shutter speeds of 1/50 and slower.

Spot metering wouldn't be my metering mode of choice, especially in a moving situation. Modern cameras have very good wide/multi metering modes and a lot of the time you can rely on these, however if you want consistent results then using full manual exposure if often the way to go. If needs be you can review your shot and adjust exposure accordingly.

Just heard there's a R6 111 and a R7 11 coming out this summer.

There's always new cameras coming out, you can be waiting forever and a day if you wait for the next camera

 

[swanseamale47]

As others have said superzooms rae not the best quality.
I've got a sigma 18-250 for crop and a Tamron 28-300 for FF. Both are great walk around lens, and both are passable enough for fun shots or if you want to travel light.
Sadly both are not at their best compard to an L lens, or even say a Tamron 70-300, especially at the long end (where I find qulaity worse) it seems wide angle is easier to design for.I wont use the 18-250 over 200, and I'm not crazy about that.
Indeed I tedt to use the Canon 18-135 in preference if I'm going light, it's better quality, although you loose on the long end (and thats a kit lens)
They are handy and do have a place, but I wouldnt want to shoot a wedding one,
I found a very long time age you buy a cheap lens, get dissapointed, buy a better one, then end up buying a good one. You could save money buy buying good one in the first place.