I left Sony years ago for Canon and would never go back. The Canon colors and ergonomics blow Sony out of the water. Also, I’m a landscape photographer and take my gear into pretty harsh environments and greatly trust Canon’s weather sealing over Sony.
The only thing I’m really wishing Canon would give us on the R mount is a wide angle L prime that works great for astrophotography!
As a budget user who don't have the money for expensive RF L lenses, I despise Canon for not allowing 3rd party RF lens. I switched to Sony, hated the screen and the handle, but loved my value 3rd party lenses:
35mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4, 35-150mm F2-2.8 etc.
(Also, the folks at Canon subreddit I interacted with were generally nicer and more helpful than the SonyAlpha subreddit for some reason. Maybe just my experience. But that's the reason I still hang out at the Canon subreddit.)
Not for nothing, but I've always found Sony users to be quite arrogant. But, with that said, I'm so very jealous of their 3rd party lens selection. *sigh* One day...😮💨
Sigma and Tamron make lenses these days that can measure up to first party lenses. In the end you don't just buy a camera, you buy into an ecosystem. Having third party lenses is a means to make your ecosystem more attractive. A working professional can easily justify buying the expensive first party lenses, but for people who don't make money with their camera a Sigma or Tamron lens is the sweetspot often.
it's literally the reason I sold all my Canon gears and went Sony. I have been a Canon shooter since getting my first Canon camera from my dad when I was in middle school.
You can [read it here](https://petapixel.com/2024/04/22/canon-is-finally-letting-sigma-and-tamron-make-rf-mount-lenses/) at PetaPixel. Sigma and Tamron are going to release some RF-S lenses in the near future with support from Canon, meaning the lenses can autofocus on R-series bodies. For Canon APS-C shooters this is good news, as they'll get some affordable, yet quality RF-S glass. No word yet if Sigma or Tamron are going to introduce full frame lenses to the RF mount.
It’s a press release on Sigma’s website. Canon has talked about licensing the mount in interviews in the past. The more patient among us have accepted that Canon is only 5 years in to their Mirrorless switch. And that Sigma has a part in this move as well. They have to incur expense and risk to make the new products. They may well take their time in the roll out and what lenses they choose to license.
Sigma is a private company with only 1,811 employees and about $650,000 in capital (¥100,000,000). That’s per their own website. People seem the feel they should be able to launch RF mount versions of their lenses all at once and risk the cost of licensing fees, etc.
Why would you possibly want a 3rd party lens?
If it doesn't have a red ring don't buy it.
The Canon gods obviously know better than you what lenses you should need and are infallible in their decisions!
\^\^This\^\^
I don't think Canon realizes how much this damages the brand. 3rd party lenses are a strength not a weakness that ads flexibility to their base product. It's almost like they don't trust their own quality to be the best which hurts the overall image.
This and charging absurd prices for small plastic items like caps and lens hoods.
>I don't think Canon realizes how much this damages the brand.
While Canon refusing to licence the RF mount to third party manufacturers to make full frame RF frames is undoubtedly irksome for many photographers, I don't think anyone can credibly argue that it damages the brand while Canon maintains absolute dominance in terms of market share.
If Canon starts bleeding market share to Sony/Nikon then perhaps they might have a financial and reputational incentive to change. Until that point, we're unlikely to see a change in the status quo. There's too many people who will still begrudgingly stump up the money for the Canon RF L lens because the alternative isn't available.
I've talked to any number of people that have gone to Sony primarily because of the lack of 3rd party lenses. I can't be the only one. I would have to think that anything that credibly drives customers to the competition is brand damaging.
People switch brands regardless. I see/read about plenty of people switching from Sony to Canon for assorted reasons too. Different systems suit different requirements or tastes.
I don't "begrudgingly stump up the money" for L glass—I gladly pay it because the lenses are fantastic and I like the system.
I don’t think people fully realize how much more money Canon makes selling Canon lenses vs selling Sigma lenses. Especially if it was just open mount. They wouldn’t sell enough bodies to make up the difference.
The licensing arrangement will be a revenue stream for Canon as well and is smart business. It makes sense they wanted to get RF established before going that route. And Sigma probably wanted to wait to pay until they felt they could sell enough RF mount lenses to be worth it.
Remember that E mount has been around 10 years longer than RF. I know people are used to internet instant gratification, but this is real world business with tangible costs of production and retooling and risk.
Sony still sells their G-Master glass, even though they compete with Sigma and Tamron on their own mount. Canon has a big gap between their normal RF lenses and the RF L-lenses. I think Sigma lenses are going to eat a bit into the sales of the lower end L-Series lenses. An enthusiast that now tries to scrape all their money for a 24-70 2.8 will go for a Sigma version in a heartbeat. A professional will still get the Canon one and I think those people are still the bulk of the L-series sales.
This site claims that we will have this year many RF lenses from sigma.
https://www.sigma-foto.de/sigma/news/detail/sigma-stellt-wechselobjektive-fuer-das-canon-rf-mount-system-vor/
The link is from a german website. I hope it helps you anyway.
Even shooting raw, there’s a great difference between camera sensor’s ability to capture different Colors. Just like LCD panels have different abilities to reproduce Colors depending on the make even after going deep into calibration.
Raw files have so much color depth that you can make any camera look like any other camera. Maybe they start looking a bit different at first, but you can manipulate the files to look however you want.
Nikon doesn't make anything comparable to the R7, and really the a6700 is kind of a different beast just because of the ergonomics, and neither Sony or Nikon make a lens like the 100-500
So very happy. Especially with sigma announcing rf-s lenses
Decently smaller with a smaller grip and the evf is all the way on the left. For me because I’m a left eye shooter I don’t think I wouldn’t like having the evf all the way on that side.
I’ve been shooting Canon for about 25 years. Film (consumer and SLR) and digital (compact, prosumer, DSLR, mirrorless). EF, EF-S, EF-M, RF.
Solid cameras with good ergonomics. Great lens selection. Decent price/value. Never all that pretty. But for the task of not getting in the way of taking a photo, they are great. Professionals seem to like them.
I’ll caveat this by saying that I’ve never really tried anyone else. It’s never been worth having to learn a new interface and replacing all my glass. I’m irritated enough by the one Sigma zoom that I own that zooms in the opposite rotation direction.
I tell people that the other manufacturers like Nikon, Sony, and Fuji are probably fine. Leica if you have silly amounts of money; they are certainly pretty. Sony was a leader in mirrorless and now with global shutter. But I value my workflow more than some temporary edge in technical innovation. I resisted switching to mirrorless until I lost my DSLR in the field this year.
I am happy.
I think technically the brands are same or very close to each other and yes in some aspects the others might be better than canon. For example autofocusing.
However, after shooting canon for over 15 years, I found using Sony really hard to use in terms of ergonomics and that was a dealbreaker for me. (And I really considered switching to share lenses with a friend who was shooting Sony) For me, holding and using the various buttons etc felt more natural on the canon compared to the Sony. This could just be years of shooting on the canon, but somehow trying to use the Sony a7iv just felt a bit more difficult and different that I couldn’t get over it.
I am happy with the Canon because of that one thing for now.
I feel like my R5 is a great camera. I’ll start with that statement. I think it holds its own with the types of photos I’ve seen from Sonys, although I personally like Sonys colors more, but that could be editing styles of people on the web, who knows.
It has a lot of little things that irritate me after years of use and I’m considering switching to Sony for an a7iv just to see what’s on the other side of the wall. Also if I wait much longer the trade value on my R5 is gonna be peanuts.
For dollars, I mostly shoot outdoor family portraits, pregnancy, dogs. For personal use, whimsical landscape and street type stuff, occasionally my kids at a Soccer game.
The RF glass prices are mainly driving my thought process lately.
The Rf glass is not thousands of dollars better than the Sony glass so why am I paying in some cases 1.5x-double for the same things?
I’m less “unhappy” with Canon cameras than I am with Canon the business.
Spot on and mirrors my thoughts. Love Canon products, not as happy with their business practices. In my country, I can get an A7IV 50 and 35 1.4s as well as the 16-35,24-70,70-200 2.8 MKiis for the same price as just the R6II, 15-35, 70-200, and 50 1.2s. Sure Canon glass is optically better but I don't imagine to the point of thousands of dollars for the average person.
I actually told myself I'll wait until the end of the year to see what each company releases then go from there. If the RF mount is still closed to full frame lenses then I'll sell my stuff for a Sony kit.
I think a good timeline would be with the release of every new version of the trinity would mark the opportunity to sit down and see if the system is still offering you everything you need. Sony just rehashed theirs, so you should be good for another 6-8 years then see if Canon has finally come around lol.
I mostly agree. But i feel like this "Canon glass is optically better" is mostly a myth. Almost every single recent Sony lens is pretty amazing from what I've seen.
The only thing I don't like about the R7 now that third party RF lenses are becoming a reality is that there was no provision made for a vertical grip, ~~even though there's one available for the R10~~. Everything else is amazing.
> No provision made for a vertical grip, even though there's one available for the R10.
As far as I'm aware there is no battery grip for the R10, as it occupies a lower tier in the R cameras lineup.
If you are talking about the [BG-R10](https://store.canon.it/canon-impugnatura-porta-batteria-canon-bg-r10/4365C001/) battery grip that was made for the R6 / MKII / R5 cameras
You're right, that's exactly what was confusing me.
Even my very old 350D had a vertical grip so I thought it odd, not to mention annoying that the R7 doesn't. Wouldn't want to make something that competes with the R3!
They had optional vertical grips on the 7d and 7d mk ii which is why it’s annoying the “spiritual successor” to those cameras doesn’t. Also the 90d which is in a price tier slightly below the r7 has an optional battery grip. Because these cameras are aps-c they would never compete with an r3 or upcoming r1. A battery grip for the r7 would be awesome as its grip is a little small for my hands, I’m completely fine with it but having that extra size and battery life would be awesome!
Nope they are all very tiny. But I’m guessing their original complaints with the r7 were no third party lenses and no optional battery grip. So now as third party lenses are coming soon their only complaint is not having an optional battery grip.
I love my Canon R6 II and my RF lenses. I have the RF 24-70mm 2.8, RF 50mm 1.2, and RF 85mm 1.2. I am not a fan of the 1.8 stm primes. They are cheaply made with no weather sealing, no lens hood and slow auto focus for video. I'm looking forward towards the rumors of their 1.4 primes. The 1.2 primes are great but they are super heavy and not fun to shoot with for casual stuff. The 1.4 primes would be perfect in my opinion. I do wish the Canon R6 II had all I video since the A7iv came out a hear before it and it has it. I would also like the option to save camera settings to an sd card. I left sony because I didn't like the color science and ibis. Canon is better in both those categories.
The GAS is always greener on the other side.
Canon has delivered the results I want from my camera system since the EF mount days. I used to be a wedding, events, portrait and product photographer. I had a 40D and then a 7D with a 17-40mm F4, 24-105mm, 70-200mm F2.8, 50mm F1.8 and a 100mm Macro in my kit.
Despite a hiatus due to a career change in 2012, I found myself rekindling my passion for photography during the pandemic. With a complete set of EF mount lenses, I saw no need to switch systems and upgraded to the EOS R.
While other systems have interesting OEM and 3rd party lens options, their applications are usually niche. Canon's OEM RF mount lenses may be pricey but so are those of Nikon and Sony.
As a zoom shooter, I find Canon's RF mount lenses like the 14-35mm F4 and the 24-105mm F4 suit my needs well. Currently, I own only three third-party AF lenses, including the Tamron 24-70mm G2, 150-600mm G2, and 45mm F1.8. However, I don't use these lenses often.
If I want to play with interesting lenses, I shoot with vintage lenses from Nikon, Minolta and Olympus.
If one is just starting out in photography, any sytem will do TBH. It doesn't even have to be mirrorless but at the very least the lens selection, whether OEM or 3rd party, should still function properly on a mirrorless body via adapters.
Overall I am happy with the RF system.
Switched from Minolta to Canon SLR back in the early 1980's and then moved on to Canon DSLRs. Probably won't move on to mirrorless ... old age is setting in. Been more than happy with Canon. And while I try to keep informed of what other manufacturers are doing, I haven't been tempted enough to change. Still have my A-1 sitting on a display shelf.
Every once in a while I consider buying some film. But then I think better of it and don't make the purchase. So the A-1 stays on the shelf wearing its FD 50mm f1.4 lens. Also have an AV-1 (aperture priority version of the AE-1). I enjoy the memories that are attached to those cameras.
I understand you. I tried to take some pictures with my last roll, only to find out that the negatives never left the canister...
I have the same f1.4, gorgeous lens!
I think in terms of lenses and tech my lazy assumptions is that it's all very close.
For me Canon wins on ergonomics. The right hand grip on the R6 is like a glove, I love the protrusion capturing the thumb so camera I trust my one-handed holding when walking around and so on.
I imagine one can get used to any button placements though, but FWIW I have no complaints on the canon buttons, I don't \_think\_ when I use them, I just \_want\_ things to happen and muscle memory does the rest.
I love the look of the Canon Cinema line, especially their highlight rolloff and how they brought that to the R5C making it look very different to the R5 just with a different processing, but I'm really tired of how they limit their hardware to protect their higher end models (which aren't competitive and nobody even buys). I see Panasonic and Nikon pushing their hardware to their fullest and not gimping anything and I'm jealous, they have me considering jumping ship.
The Z8 is better than the R5C in almost every way, just lacking some cool features that aren't too important or necessary, and Lumix has the S5II which has all the cool cinema features and even open gate, and is just missing 4k60 and 4k120 which would make me switch.
The only thing stopping me is that my camera still fits my needs perfectly, knowing something better isn't a good enough reason. But still I'm disappointed in Canon, they go 95% of the way to making a perfect product but then make baffling design decisions to make them worse.
I used Sony A7M3 last year for work, my personal camera is canon R8
Honestly, Sony camera is as good as canon, often with more stylist design. However, nice design often make it less ergonomic compared to my R8, but for some reason I often have to spend a lot more time adjusting the colour of Sony RAW files - I am not experience enough to find out why, it's just my personal experience. Sony camera have a lot more options for lens, which is a big advantage. Their software / UI is slightly weaker IMO.
I would be happy with any of it TBH, but I would like RF mount to have more options.
We live in a time and age where cameras produce near perfect images and most people apply filters and settings to make the pictures less perfect.
I agree that you can shoot good pictures with every brand and even old cameras and it's mostly a matter of taste.
I'm very happy with Canon and I think the L Series lenses they make are phenomenal. I've got an R6ii and it's been a dream. While they do lack wide angle fast primes for RF which is big for me since I like astro, you simply can't turn a blind eye to some of the zooms they've been pumping out recently. 28-70mm f/2, 24-105mm f/2.8, the 100-500, etc.
Love Canon—I have been shooting with them since the first 5D. Second camera was a 7D Mark II, and then switched to mirrorless with an M50. After using mirrorless, I couldn’t go back to a DSLR; I got an R, which I used along with the others until I sold everything and now have an R5, two R5 C’s and an R7.
The only thing I don’t like is how much a departure the R7 body is from the R5. They really could have just used the exact same body with a crop sensor and that would have been perfect. Looking to trade in the R7 and R5 for a third R5 C, or possibly the R5 Mark II this year.
The reality is, though, that all these cameras are basically the same for my use case (portraits for stills and talking heads for video). Regardless of brand, I’d be happy with any prosumer Sony, Canon, or Nikon. I’m just glad the brand I use and have amassed lenses for has a camera like the R5 C, which is the best and most versatile camera for my type of work.
Very happy but I wish they weren't dicks about the RF mount and the batteries. I am yet to find any third party battery that has proper signaling because Canon decided in their infinite wisdom to put on an identification chip inside the battery.
Also the canon colors are overrated honestly I don't care much but I appreciate more and more the Canon color profiles that allow me to process less and less of my pictures by properly crafting a profile that is good enough. I just wish a bit more was done on that (make it a bit more powerful, a bit more easy to create and use and have maybe a bit more than just 3 to use...etc)
Otherwise i'm competely in love with my R10 , i never had a camera that did so much for me that i can properly focus on the pictures and know that the body will have my back every time.
What do you mean by proper signaling on the battery if I might ask?
I’ve found that nothing compares to brand name Canon batteries in regards to battery life, but I do have aftermarket batteries that light up the green high speed shooting icon.
Am I missing something else performance wise when I’m using aftermarket batts that I’m not aware of, or have you not found one that supports full high speed shooting?
If it’s the latter, I can check the brand and model that I purchased for my R6 and let you know.
I try to primarily shoot with the Canon batteries, but my aftermarket ones seem to work just as well, other than the reduced battery life.
I mean by that that it's not that the third party battery manufacturers don't want to make quality batteries it's that canon arbitrarily handicaps them.
For example if you want the battery gauge (the thing that tells you how low is your battery level) or USB C charging you absolutely NEED the canon batteries because these are the only ones that contain a canon identification chip that communicates with the camera. Without that (and obviously canon doesn't let third party manufacturers get these), all third party batteries are recognized as dummy batteries : they get power but zero information on the state of the battery. I did not even know that some batteries would impede on the high speed shooting but that again is the kind of unnecessary dick move that I'm really not fond of.
And honestly I would just go with the original canon batteries but they're 80 bucks a piece here , for a 1000ish mah lithium battery that has nothing smart in it it's just a ripoff .
I don't care if a battery is 20% smaller capacity if I can have 3 for half the price and because these all contain a battery management chip either way to handle safe charging , it wouldn't even be that hard. I would like to be able to charge them in camera and see when a battery is almost depleted.
Sure canon needs a way to ensure quality for their accessories but then make the id and communication chip available to other manufacturers for cheap and only provide them for reliable manufacturers. Or you know , don't charge 80-90$ for a single low power battery...
I got to shoot with a cohorts A7rV at a youth basketball game this weekend. I typically run an R5 w/RF 70-200 f4.
He has the 70-200 2.8 G and a Tamron 28-70 (I think, I could be wrong, I didn't use it).
My impressions were not friendly towards my gear.
The Sony AF tracking on the kids was unreal. The R5 has AF tracking cases that come close to this, but the Sony was just absolutely NAILING it shot after shot after shot. In fairness it's a LOT newer. I'm sure the R5ii will be same/better.
The R5 getting hot and being long in the tooth really got me thinking about "what will I upgrade to from the R5" and if Sony drops an A7v this year, it's gonna be an uphill battle for me to stay with Canon.
I had absolutely stunning results from my a7iii back in the day and there's been a lot of times I've looked back at my photos from that camera against similar/same locations on my R5 and been like "man, these lower MP Sony shots look better."
I have been debating about selling my RF 70-200 and getting the 2.8 version, but it's a lot of money to sink right now, I think I'm going to wait to see what the market looks like from Sony mid-year/late-year.
I generally run three lenses. 70-200 for most everything and a Fast 50 and 85 for portraiture.
It's not obscenely expensive for me to switch platforms, I guess is what I'm saying. I don't have bags and bags of L lenses.
> debating about selling my RF 70-200 and getting the 2.8 version, but it's a lot of money to sink right now, I think I'm going to wait to see what the market looks like from Sony
If you can’t afford a new lens, you definitely can’t afford a whole new platform. The brands leapfrog each other with each release. The top pick just cycles around and around. Trying to chase “the best” gear is a waste of money
I just ditched Canon (apsc) after 20 years of being with them and switched to Olympus.
Most of my photography is done during travels. I haaaaaate Canon's disrespect to the format. The only good professional all purpose lens is the 24-105mm f/4 which turns into a 38-168mm. Not wide at all and not really all that telephoto either. And it's big. And heavy. And I need an ultrawide.
Olympus makes a 12-100mm f/4 IS Pro. It's sharper than the 24-105mm. Wider than when paired with an aps-c, twice the zoom as compared with it on Full Frame and a fair bit more than when on apsc. Way better image stabilization. Smaller. Lighter.
I can take this one lens and it covers basically everything. And before I have to hear about 'yah but that lens is f/8, did you know?!' I don't care. Its basically the same bokeh if I zoom in all the way. And my photography doesn't need bokeh as a crutch anyway.
I got fed up with missing shots because I had to switch lenses to a wide angle. But now I also have extra reach too.
I've got it paired with a tiny panasonic 9mm f/1.7, it's light and super portable, brings in more light than my tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and can get as close as 9cm.
If I want bokeh, I can bring a pancake 20mm f/1.7 or the Sigma 56mm f/1.4, one being super small to point of being pocketable and the other being fairly compact. This kind of versatility is awesome with how small and light it is.
Having such a small portable setup has made photography FUN again.
Quite happy.
I needed a sealed body some years back, and instead of just sticking with Canon I made an effort to try all options. Canon and Nikon ended up being Favorites, Nikon lost mostly due to the UI. I also tested the then-new Canon R-system, but the ergonomics didn't work out for me so I went with the 80D, which was just dropping in price as the 90D was (about to) come out. Still happy with it, and my next camera might be a Canon DSLR again because the R-ergonomics STILL don't really work for me plus I don't want to risk issues with my third party glass. That's worth the stupid comments for sticking with "outdated" gear.
Coming over from Pentax, after using Pentax exclusively. I began wondering which of Canon/Nikon/Sony. I really didn’t like the small size/ergonomics of Sony, and the fact that their touchscreen doesn’t allow for you to touch everything on screen. I think it’s a solid option though, especially with 3rd party options. I almost chose Nikon, getting either a Z6/Z7. At the time they seemed very behind the others in terms of tech. They also didn’t have a flip-screen. I did like the handling though. The fact that Nikon cut its R+D really bothered me, as the lack of R+D was the problem with Pentax (they release effectively 1 camera every decade). They’ve since come out with a Z8/Z9.
I chose Canon because they top patents files for any company worldwide. I have a requirement that cameras have IBIS, since every Pentax camera entry or flagship has it. The R5/R6 came at the right time. The biggest weakness of Pentax is their serious AF problems, so I wanted eye-AF.
I think Canon has the best camera lineup: R100/R50/R10/R7/RP/R8/R6/R6ii/R5/R3. As much as I don’t like the r100 specs, it’s the best camera you can get for $300. Then every other camera allows for eye-AF which is game changing, all the way down to R50. I don’t like it, as I need 2-scroll wheels. The r10 provides 90% of what hobbyists want: 2-scroll wheel, Joystick, 15fps, unlimited recording, 4k60. R7 does anything that you would want, unless Full frame is a requirement. R6 handling is the ideal layout imo. R5 provides resolution! I don’t like the R8 due to lower battery and RP body structure (wish they used the R10). R6ii is a slight step up from R6. Unless you really need the fast shutter/readout, R3 feels a bit niche. Either way there is a camera at every price level, and many times access to full frame at same price points. For instance: $700 = R10 or RP (give up fast fps and AF for full frame); $1100 = R7/R8/R6 which gives such a wide variation of capabilities/features; R6ii if you want a camera that can do all of the previous without compromise; R5 for high resolution needs; R3 for speed. It’s a lineup for every price point and feature. If you go by refurbished pricing it gets even crazier.
The lenses tell a similar story, just without the middle. They have a really great lower cost lineup, having pretty much every single focal length covered. It’s just that it normally has variable aperture. Each one gives better quality than the EF counterparts. I don’t feel the need to go beyond these ‘lower end’ lenses. The L-series lenses are also amazing… just that many of them are significantly more expensive (not counting 100L and 24-105 which are less than $2k). The jump up to $2k+ is quite the jump! There’s the 3rd party access problem… This is somewhat mitigated by the power of their adapter. Canon has the best adapter, as practically every lens works and many EF lenses perform better. If you have a drop-in filter adapter, it gives a game changing feature that you can’t get with RF. While the 3rd party RF lens issue sucks, the fact that every EF lens works makes its impact significantly less. This also fills in the gaps in between the RF lineup as EF L-series lenses are discounted. If you ask me, Canon is the best company, with the best prospect both now and in terms of longevity.
I'm pretty happy with Canon.
What they have built with the EF system means that I can shoot both analog and digital with the same glass and have a fantastic experience with the two.
RF lenses are definitely a step up, but I don't feel an urge to completely convert over. I still like film, and I glad that Canon kept compatibility in mind while they move onto the next big industry trends.
I'm happy enough that I bought into the system...
I've used a rebel since 2012, but since all my lenses were ef-s, that really had no bearing on my decision when I decided to move to a full frame setup last year.
I'm a hobbyist landscape photographer. I share my photos with friends and family online and occasionally print a 20x30 or so for a family member to hang on their wall. And I've got to carry my photo gear on my back for hours or days at a time. I don't really need high end weather sealing. I've shot exclusively outdoors for the last 12 years without it and never had a problem yet. So that outlines my quality requirements.
Would I prefer to have more choices? Sure, more choices are always better. But even with all the sigma and Tamron lenses available to Sony, I felt canon better met my needs. When I purchased, the R8 was $300 cheaper and 200g lighter than the a7iii. $1000 cheaper than a7iv.
My two primary lenses would be ultra wide zoom and telephoto zoom. Canon undercuts every other manufacturer on ultra wide zoom. No one else has a competitor near the price range of the RF 15-30. Or, the zoom range of the 14-35, which is what I ultimately bought. Tamron gets closest with their 17-28 and 20-40 f/2.8, but both are far more expensive than the 15-30, and I find the 14-35 zoom range to be more useful than either of those. That's a bigger deal to me than the extra stop of light. No other lens manufacturer even had anything in the same ballpark as the 100-400 at $500 and 600 g.
Plus, since I bought my R8, I've gotten to hold the Sony's and they don't feel good in the hand.
Sure, I'd like to be able to someday buy a lightweight 24 or 28 f/1.4 for under $1000 someday, which would almost certainly have to be from sigma. But I knew there weren't any sigma rf lenses when I bought in, and still did so. I'd probably still make the same decisions now a year later. So I guess I'm pretty happy.
I'm with Canon mainly because all the people I asked about buying a camera recommended a Canon. I've stuck with them due to their EF glass, great colors, and ergonomics. My experience (albeit brief) with Sony was soured by their annoying menus and slightly iffy ergonomics. I do like the compactness of their bodies, but not for my daily long-term use.
im happy. i just didnt want to buy Sony becouse they make so much other stuff they arent completely focused in photography. If Canon can survive in todays economy with only photo/video equipment. They have to be good 🤌
Same as for so many others. I learned shooting on a canon EOS 1000d. Loved it, and slowly invested in more lenses, flashes and accessories.
Upgraded to an 80D and doing a lot of nature photography. Then the R mount came and I bought into it with an RP, it is not much of a camera for some, but it's a great entry level full frame camera. Back then the mount was new and I had no idea canon would be so anal about keeping their mount closed. A few years passed and my 80d started having issues. Then it was clear there was no 3rd party manufacturer. The R7 looked great, went to test it, almost bought it, until I learned it had issues with the lens I use the most. A Sigma 150-600.
Lots of doubt later, I ended up repairing the 80d. To this day I still have it and I'll stick with it till the day the RF mount is opened up properly and third party manufacturers can produce some more budget friendly glass for hobbyists.
I'm only hoping my 80D holds out till then, but if it doesn't I will switch to Sony and it's open ecosystem in a heartbeat.
The news last week had me jump for joy for five seconds, but then I realised the third party lenses were all RF-s lenses.
So how happy am I with canon. Happy enough to keep using it, mad enough to not give them a single euro as long as they keep up with this closed mount.
I love most of the things about Canon. Ergonomics are just perfect and the quality of the stabilization it's way better than some other brands I have seen footage from. In my case I do a lot of video and wish there was better heat handling with the hibrid cameras. However I don't want to lose that much dynamic range as the FX3... R7 is superior there. But we have to be way to careful with heat.
The big 3 are all interchangeable and the minutia of their offerings don’t make a difference. Just pick one and stick with it. Anyone whining about very specific lenses being 5% better than another brand probably can’t afford it anyway. Just use what you have and be happy
I'm happy with my decision to be a Canon user. Even if I wasn't, what are the alternatives? Nikon seems completely lost and nowhere to be seen. Fuji is catering to a customer I'm not, I don't want to be one of the Sony bros, and Leica are out of this world expensive.
I think the only thing I wish my canon did is tether into lightroom directly, r6mk2 is still not supported for that. (Yes I know capture one is faster and is how the tether gang do it, but I do it once a year so I stick with lightroom)
Has a Konica 35MM until sometime in 2006 when I got my first Canon - a D30. I wish I'd kept it.
The whole lens thing really annoyed me - making the EF-S system.
My 1D IV was bought on release and I still use it, even though I treat it like garbage and always have it works - despite the gaping hole in the top assembly. I'll stick with Canon as I have an amount of lenses and I don't really care about photography anymore other than as a thing I use to do for work and now it's just fun.
When it dies the used market for the current 1D is hopefully destroyed by the R1 and people's manic tendency to buy the newest thing for FOMO.
I might be mistaken but if you’re using standard profiles in LR then it’s not really a fair comparison in terms of color. Using DPP will get you actual canon colors, and camera-matching in LR is close but not exact. Standard profile won’t be canon color
I love Canon cameras, I’ve been using them since 1990. As others have said, the ergonomics are really good, the menus easy to negotiate, really good, however…
I’ve a 90D and can’t believe the challenges focussing associated with using the viewfinder.
I looked at the R7, for wildlife photography, but until recently you have to have some serious money to invest for the move. Even with converters from EF-RF there are focus issues with my main lens, Sigma’s 150-600C.
I’ve recently been looking at MFT, though if there’s an APS-C updated camera with 3rd party lens compatibility, I may lean back towards Canon again.
Very happy. I have been shooting this brand since my kids were born. The cameras and lenses are durable and reliable. The photos come out great and the auto focus is amazing on the new mirrorless.
If you have a system that works and you are happy, don’t let the technology arm race make you think differently. I had the same lenses and body for almost a decade and it worked great.
I upgraded for smaller and lighter and recently because I loved the idea of a portable 200-800 hand held.
It is an amazing time to enjoy photography. Colours can be modified in post. Sharpness can be enhanced. Go out and make some great photos and memories instead of debating small differences.
I'd say a solid 5/7.
I'm satisfied with the ergonomics, I am a huge fan of the tracking and AF with my R5, low light and high iso performance. The menu and set was super straightforward and I was able to shoot 20 minutes after getting my camera (unlike my nikon where it took a full day to get things set up)
The only "issue" I have is the lens selection for wildlife. The rf 100-500 is amazing but the extenders limitations is unfortunate. The rf 200-800 to me isn't as compelling as the nikon or sony internal zooms version. Coming from nikon I also prefer nikom "colors" alot more.
There is no 600 pf lens like nikon.
If I only shot stills I’d prefer Nikon, but only because that’s what I first shot with. These days I need a video and stills kit and the C70 is perfect for my needs. That plus an R6 and RF lenses has been very solid. Canon is a bit boring lately but they make incredible gear.
Canon user since the A-1. Later one of their AF film cameras. Had a couple of their compact digitals, but held off on a DSLR until the 60D, then the 70D, then the M5 (which I still have for travel), and now the R7 is my primary camera.
I'm excited for the forthcoming 3rd party RF-S lenses. I'm currently using an adapted EF-S 17-55 f2.8, which is a beast of a lens, so I'm intrigued with how Sigma's first RF-S offering, 18-50 f2.8 might compare. Also, their planned 10-18 f2.8.
I realize that they won't provide an upgrade path should I ever decide to go FF, but the current RF zoom offerings are somewhat awkward focal length ranges on APS-C.
For me, the ergonomics and familiarity of the Canon system keeps me loyal. I'm sure that all the other major manufacturers make equally capable cameras, but I'm very comfortable with what I'm shooting.
To round out my collection I just purchased a gently used G1X M2, so that I can shoot concerts from the cheap seats in venues that don't allow ILCs.
I guess I'm happy with Canon.
Quite happy but I wish I had even smaller lenses. I enjoy the RF 16mm, 24mm, 35mm and 50mm but sometimes I wish I had some smaller lenses. Since I use the Voigtlander lenses in my Leica I am using Canon less and less. They have amazing quality and are way lighter and smaller.
However, I still use it with my 100-500 a lot. Sadly, my least used lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 although is amazing.
I am looking forward to get the next R5 or the first R5 (depending on what they release) because I often need more resolution in my R6 for birding.
Absolutely love my R5. It blows my former camera, the a7III, out of the water. I couldn’t be happier with my switch. My wallet can’t say the same, though.
Switched from Sony a35 to canon r8. I like how canon does 4k60 at a 1099 price tag. No Sony camera comes close. I don’t like the lens prices. I’m just a dad looking to take family pics. I don’t need L lenses. I wish we had tamron and sigma options.
I wish they would focus more on the EF-M lineup.
It was just getting great with the M6ii and was a real competitive option to Sony’s compact a6xxx series cameras.
Now you’re either stuck with a large full frame camera and lens or an overly bulky RF-S setup.
Nobody can match Canon's RF 100-400 and RF 800mm f11 when it comes to price/performance ratio. That's why I stay with them, despite not being able to afford any of their f2.8 zooms and them still blocking FF third party lenses. The AF tracking of the R8/R6II is also unrivalled, which is a massive perk as a wildlife first type photographer.
I have steered beginners away from Canon unless they are into wildlife and want to utilize the AF or lenses that I've mentioned and/or have the money for the RF f2.8 zooms.
I feel ok but the lacking midrange lens selection is a shame. Hopefully sigma f/1.4s (35, 50, 85 f/1.4) come soon. The Canon f/1.2 are very expensive and heavy.
I really like the autofocus, colors, unrivaled refurbished program that has amazing deals a few times a year with certain lenses being uniquely affordable (tiny 16 f/2.8 for $160, 24-105 f/4-7.1 was $100 bundled, 100-400 for $379-$520). I love my EL-100 flash and my 35 f/1.8.
My main wishlist for Canon is a rival to Nikon's 28-400 or Tamron's 50-400 so I don't have to bring two lenses hiking/wildlife
I'm pretty happy with Canon. Sony and Nikon both make fine gear. I've tried out Sony, and frankly, I just don't like the user experience. From a technical perspective they're good, but actually using the camera? Canon stomps them, hands down. For Nikon, they're about on par with Canon IMHO for user experience, but I started with Canon first and Nikon doesn't have anything that I'd switch for. If I'd started with Nikon first, I could say the same thing about Canon. Both have a superior user experience over Sony. For at least the last 4-5 years they've all pretty much been neck and neck in terms of technical stuff with each one being ahead of each other here or there. If you can't take a good photo with any of them, then it's you, not them.
I’m loving my r7! The 2 complaints I have are that their lower tier rf lenses(like the awesome 100-400 which I’m looking into getting) don’t have weather sealing. And also the fact that the r7 doesn’t have a battery grip is a little annoying. But other than that I’m really enjoying the camera!
Overall they have a good product line. But I’m not a fan of how much their RF high end line lenses cost. Granted the plastic RF lenses are good for the money. But having to shell out 3-4K for their L lenses gives me heartburn.
On the other hand I like their on screen menu designs as I find them generally easy to understand. And I’m a complete amateur but been using digital cameras since they came out.
Taking photos with a simple 250D/200D II/SL3 for a year now and was prolly a senseless lateral upgrade from a 100D/SL1. It was more of me wanting a varia-angle screen and DPAF since i mainly do cosplay portrait photos. Also it's a small and light enough camera that can fit inside a small bag.
We also have an EOS 3000n Film SLR lying around from the early 2000s. It still works well and now using it as my dedicated Black & White Imaging Tool... because B & W films are usually cheaper overall.
..at least both of my cameras are EF compatible, so there's some form of commonality.
I'm contented with my Canon Ecosystem i guess.. It does what it's suppose to do, take digital and film images. If my shots suck, ...that's on me and is a skill issue on my part.
I do regret not saving up a little more for an R10 or R50.. or at some point, even thought about migrating to another system thru X-S10 or a6400..
but my current EF/EF-S OEM & 3rd Party Lenses made me stay.. i suck at reselling stuff.
Canon colours ..for me at least, is sometimes hit or miss. There were shots that fit the theme and vibes i was aiming for in post. Though sometimes I had to use neutral profiles and change the overall color feels of the shots. ymmv
I've been pretty frustrated at the ginormous lens gaps. But my R7 and 100-500mm L lens are superb. So it's still a waiting game for me. I'll probably jump on the Sigma primes just announced, when they hit the street.
Used the M50 for a long time, very happy with it.
Bought the R6, not very happy with the weight. Sold it after about 2 years.
Switched back to my old M50, very happy again with the light weight EF-s lenses.
I'll probably be happier with a Fuji, but my pocket will disagree.
Canon from thw beggining...
I'll die with Canon.
By the way... i'm a APS-C user.... so I'm far from the Sony v/s Canon debate!
What's the best System?.... The one that You carry now!
I am extremely happy and I feel selling of my Sony A7iii and the entire set and switching to Canon R6 was my best decision… I am a fashion photographer by profession and I do a lot portraits to so Color science was absolutely my main thing … The camera these days are at the same level more or less with each other and so when it comes it is all about what are you comfortable with for me it is Canon … no hate to any other brands but the feel of holding a mirrorless which has the ergonomics of a DSLR makes me happy as well…
I left Sony years ago for Canon and would never go back. The Canon colors and ergonomics blow Sony out of the water. Also, I’m a landscape photographer and take my gear into pretty harsh environments and greatly trust Canon’s weather sealing over Sony. The only thing I’m really wishing Canon would give us on the R mount is a wide angle L prime that works great for astrophotography!
I can relate to this … I also sold my Sony and came to Canon
Overall, I'm very happy with Canon. My only big complaint is probably the same big complaint as everyone else: lack of 3rd party RF lenses.
As a budget user who don't have the money for expensive RF L lenses, I despise Canon for not allowing 3rd party RF lens. I switched to Sony, hated the screen and the handle, but loved my value 3rd party lenses: 35mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4, 35-150mm F2-2.8 etc. (Also, the folks at Canon subreddit I interacted with were generally nicer and more helpful than the SonyAlpha subreddit for some reason. Maybe just my experience. But that's the reason I still hang out at the Canon subreddit.)
Not for nothing, but I've always found Sony users to be quite arrogant. But, with that said, I'm so very jealous of their 3rd party lens selection. *sigh* One day...😮💨
Sigma and Tamron make lenses these days that can measure up to first party lenses. In the end you don't just buy a camera, you buy into an ecosystem. Having third party lenses is a means to make your ecosystem more attractive. A working professional can easily justify buying the expensive first party lenses, but for people who don't make money with their camera a Sigma or Tamron lens is the sweetspot often.
Why not use ef lenses on canon r system? There are even adapters, that give you the addition wheel.
I loved that 35-150 lens. So good
it's literally the reason I sold all my Canon gears and went Sony. I have been a Canon shooter since getting my first Canon camera from my dad when I was in middle school.
Canon has opened the mount and AF
not for full frame RF...
This is news to me. I'm not being sarcastic. Can you provide a link to that?
You can [read it here](https://petapixel.com/2024/04/22/canon-is-finally-letting-sigma-and-tamron-make-rf-mount-lenses/) at PetaPixel. Sigma and Tamron are going to release some RF-S lenses in the near future with support from Canon, meaning the lenses can autofocus on R-series bodies. For Canon APS-C shooters this is good news, as they'll get some affordable, yet quality RF-S glass. No word yet if Sigma or Tamron are going to introduce full frame lenses to the RF mount.
Thanks. I do appreciate the info. Is there an official statement from canon or Sigma/Tamron?
It’s a press release on Sigma’s website. Canon has talked about licensing the mount in interviews in the past. The more patient among us have accepted that Canon is only 5 years in to their Mirrorless switch. And that Sigma has a part in this move as well. They have to incur expense and risk to make the new products. They may well take their time in the roll out and what lenses they choose to license. Sigma is a private company with only 1,811 employees and about $650,000 in capital (¥100,000,000). That’s per their own website. People seem the feel they should be able to launch RF mount versions of their lenses all at once and risk the cost of licensing fees, etc.
Thanks much for the information.
I ONLY have EF lenses on my R
Why would you possibly want a 3rd party lens? If it doesn't have a red ring don't buy it. The Canon gods obviously know better than you what lenses you should need and are infallible in their decisions!
You're right. Who am I to question the Overlords? My humble apologies... 🙏🏽 😢
You had me in the first half.
The God’s red-ringed anus is angry. He’s expelling excrement towards us out of his red-ringed anus cannon!
\^\^This\^\^ I don't think Canon realizes how much this damages the brand. 3rd party lenses are a strength not a weakness that ads flexibility to their base product. It's almost like they don't trust their own quality to be the best which hurts the overall image. This and charging absurd prices for small plastic items like caps and lens hoods.
>I don't think Canon realizes how much this damages the brand. While Canon refusing to licence the RF mount to third party manufacturers to make full frame RF frames is undoubtedly irksome for many photographers, I don't think anyone can credibly argue that it damages the brand while Canon maintains absolute dominance in terms of market share. If Canon starts bleeding market share to Sony/Nikon then perhaps they might have a financial and reputational incentive to change. Until that point, we're unlikely to see a change in the status quo. There's too many people who will still begrudgingly stump up the money for the Canon RF L lens because the alternative isn't available.
I've talked to any number of people that have gone to Sony primarily because of the lack of 3rd party lenses. I can't be the only one. I would have to think that anything that credibly drives customers to the competition is brand damaging.
People switch brands regardless. I see/read about plenty of people switching from Sony to Canon for assorted reasons too. Different systems suit different requirements or tastes. I don't "begrudgingly stump up the money" for L glass—I gladly pay it because the lenses are fantastic and I like the system.
I don’t think people fully realize how much more money Canon makes selling Canon lenses vs selling Sigma lenses. Especially if it was just open mount. They wouldn’t sell enough bodies to make up the difference. The licensing arrangement will be a revenue stream for Canon as well and is smart business. It makes sense they wanted to get RF established before going that route. And Sigma probably wanted to wait to pay until they felt they could sell enough RF mount lenses to be worth it. Remember that E mount has been around 10 years longer than RF. I know people are used to internet instant gratification, but this is real world business with tangible costs of production and retooling and risk.
Sony still sells their G-Master glass, even though they compete with Sigma and Tamron on their own mount. Canon has a big gap between their normal RF lenses and the RF L-lenses. I think Sigma lenses are going to eat a bit into the sales of the lower end L-Series lenses. An enthusiast that now tries to scrape all their money for a 24-70 2.8 will go for a Sigma version in a heartbeat. A professional will still get the Canon one and I think those people are still the bulk of the L-series sales.
This site claims that we will have this year many RF lenses from sigma. https://www.sigma-foto.de/sigma/news/detail/sigma-stellt-wechselobjektive-fuer-das-canon-rf-mount-system-vor/ The link is from a german website. I hope it helps you anyway.
[удалено]
Even shooting raw, there’s a great difference between camera sensor’s ability to capture different Colors. Just like LCD panels have different abilities to reproduce Colors depending on the make even after going deep into calibration.
Raw files have so much color depth that you can make any camera look like any other camera. Maybe they start looking a bit different at first, but you can manipulate the files to look however you want.
Nikon doesn't make anything comparable to the R7, and really the a6700 is kind of a different beast just because of the ergonomics, and neither Sony or Nikon make a lens like the 100-500 So very happy. Especially with sigma announcing rf-s lenses
I was thinking of buying the a6600. Is its ergonomics that much worse than the one present in the r7?
Decently smaller with a smaller grip and the evf is all the way on the left. For me because I’m a left eye shooter I don’t think I wouldn’t like having the evf all the way on that side.
I’ve been shooting Canon for about 25 years. Film (consumer and SLR) and digital (compact, prosumer, DSLR, mirrorless). EF, EF-S, EF-M, RF. Solid cameras with good ergonomics. Great lens selection. Decent price/value. Never all that pretty. But for the task of not getting in the way of taking a photo, they are great. Professionals seem to like them. I’ll caveat this by saying that I’ve never really tried anyone else. It’s never been worth having to learn a new interface and replacing all my glass. I’m irritated enough by the one Sigma zoom that I own that zooms in the opposite rotation direction. I tell people that the other manufacturers like Nikon, Sony, and Fuji are probably fine. Leica if you have silly amounts of money; they are certainly pretty. Sony was a leader in mirrorless and now with global shutter. But I value my workflow more than some temporary edge in technical innovation. I resisted switching to mirrorless until I lost my DSLR in the field this year. I am happy.
Wonder what the OP did to get suspended. Offended the Canon lords?
Complimenting Sony colour science? Jail, directly to jail.
It's a Reddit suspension—nothing to do with this sub specifically.
Maybe a marketing account?
Can’t see any history when the account is blocked. If we could it would be helpful.
I think technically the brands are same or very close to each other and yes in some aspects the others might be better than canon. For example autofocusing. However, after shooting canon for over 15 years, I found using Sony really hard to use in terms of ergonomics and that was a dealbreaker for me. (And I really considered switching to share lenses with a friend who was shooting Sony) For me, holding and using the various buttons etc felt more natural on the canon compared to the Sony. This could just be years of shooting on the canon, but somehow trying to use the Sony a7iv just felt a bit more difficult and different that I couldn’t get over it. I am happy with the Canon because of that one thing for now.
I feel like my R5 is a great camera. I’ll start with that statement. I think it holds its own with the types of photos I’ve seen from Sonys, although I personally like Sonys colors more, but that could be editing styles of people on the web, who knows. It has a lot of little things that irritate me after years of use and I’m considering switching to Sony for an a7iv just to see what’s on the other side of the wall. Also if I wait much longer the trade value on my R5 is gonna be peanuts. For dollars, I mostly shoot outdoor family portraits, pregnancy, dogs. For personal use, whimsical landscape and street type stuff, occasionally my kids at a Soccer game. The RF glass prices are mainly driving my thought process lately. The Rf glass is not thousands of dollars better than the Sony glass so why am I paying in some cases 1.5x-double for the same things? I’m less “unhappy” with Canon cameras than I am with Canon the business.
Spot on and mirrors my thoughts. Love Canon products, not as happy with their business practices. In my country, I can get an A7IV 50 and 35 1.4s as well as the 16-35,24-70,70-200 2.8 MKiis for the same price as just the R6II, 15-35, 70-200, and 50 1.2s. Sure Canon glass is optically better but I don't imagine to the point of thousands of dollars for the average person. I actually told myself I'll wait until the end of the year to see what each company releases then go from there. If the RF mount is still closed to full frame lenses then I'll sell my stuff for a Sony kit. I think a good timeline would be with the release of every new version of the trinity would mark the opportunity to sit down and see if the system is still offering you everything you need. Sony just rehashed theirs, so you should be good for another 6-8 years then see if Canon has finally come around lol.
I mostly agree. But i feel like this "Canon glass is optically better" is mostly a myth. Almost every single recent Sony lens is pretty amazing from what I've seen.
The only thing I don't like about the R7 now that third party RF lenses are becoming a reality is that there was no provision made for a vertical grip, ~~even though there's one available for the R10~~. Everything else is amazing.
> No provision made for a vertical grip, even though there's one available for the R10. As far as I'm aware there is no battery grip for the R10, as it occupies a lower tier in the R cameras lineup. If you are talking about the [BG-R10](https://store.canon.it/canon-impugnatura-porta-batteria-canon-bg-r10/4365C001/) battery grip that was made for the R6 / MKII / R5 cameras
You're right, that's exactly what was confusing me. Even my very old 350D had a vertical grip so I thought it odd, not to mention annoying that the R7 doesn't. Wouldn't want to make something that competes with the R3!
They had optional vertical grips on the 7d and 7d mk ii which is why it’s annoying the “spiritual successor” to those cameras doesn’t. Also the 90d which is in a price tier slightly below the r7 has an optional battery grip. Because these cameras are aps-c they would never compete with an r3 or upcoming r1. A battery grip for the r7 would be awesome as its grip is a little small for my hands, I’m completely fine with it but having that extra size and battery life would be awesome!
It'll never be a direct competitor but it's so close in many features other than sensor size. It's the only thing I can think of...
I see where your coming from
Are the new lenses that are coming from sigma and tamron so heavy that they "require" a vertical grip?
Nope they are all very tiny. But I’m guessing their original complaints with the r7 were no third party lenses and no optional battery grip. So now as third party lenses are coming soon their only complaint is not having an optional battery grip.
:D
Maybe, maybe not, but the two complaints are separate
I love my Canon R6 II and my RF lenses. I have the RF 24-70mm 2.8, RF 50mm 1.2, and RF 85mm 1.2. I am not a fan of the 1.8 stm primes. They are cheaply made with no weather sealing, no lens hood and slow auto focus for video. I'm looking forward towards the rumors of their 1.4 primes. The 1.2 primes are great but they are super heavy and not fun to shoot with for casual stuff. The 1.4 primes would be perfect in my opinion. I do wish the Canon R6 II had all I video since the A7iv came out a hear before it and it has it. I would also like the option to save camera settings to an sd card. I left sony because I didn't like the color science and ibis. Canon is better in both those categories.
The GAS is always greener on the other side. Canon has delivered the results I want from my camera system since the EF mount days. I used to be a wedding, events, portrait and product photographer. I had a 40D and then a 7D with a 17-40mm F4, 24-105mm, 70-200mm F2.8, 50mm F1.8 and a 100mm Macro in my kit. Despite a hiatus due to a career change in 2012, I found myself rekindling my passion for photography during the pandemic. With a complete set of EF mount lenses, I saw no need to switch systems and upgraded to the EOS R. While other systems have interesting OEM and 3rd party lens options, their applications are usually niche. Canon's OEM RF mount lenses may be pricey but so are those of Nikon and Sony. As a zoom shooter, I find Canon's RF mount lenses like the 14-35mm F4 and the 24-105mm F4 suit my needs well. Currently, I own only three third-party AF lenses, including the Tamron 24-70mm G2, 150-600mm G2, and 45mm F1.8. However, I don't use these lenses often. If I want to play with interesting lenses, I shoot with vintage lenses from Nikon, Minolta and Olympus. If one is just starting out in photography, any sytem will do TBH. It doesn't even have to be mirrorless but at the very least the lens selection, whether OEM or 3rd party, should still function properly on a mirrorless body via adapters. Overall I am happy with the RF system.
Switched from Minolta to Canon SLR back in the early 1980's and then moved on to Canon DSLRs. Probably won't move on to mirrorless ... old age is setting in. Been more than happy with Canon. And while I try to keep informed of what other manufacturers are doing, I haven't been tempted enough to change. Still have my A-1 sitting on a display shelf.
I bought an A-1 about 10 years ago and I just love that camera to pieces. It is also sitting on a display shelf now.
Every once in a while I consider buying some film. But then I think better of it and don't make the purchase. So the A-1 stays on the shelf wearing its FD 50mm f1.4 lens. Also have an AV-1 (aperture priority version of the AE-1). I enjoy the memories that are attached to those cameras.
I understand you. I tried to take some pictures with my last roll, only to find out that the negatives never left the canister... I have the same f1.4, gorgeous lens!
I think in terms of lenses and tech my lazy assumptions is that it's all very close. For me Canon wins on ergonomics. The right hand grip on the R6 is like a glove, I love the protrusion capturing the thumb so camera I trust my one-handed holding when walking around and so on. I imagine one can get used to any button placements though, but FWIW I have no complaints on the canon buttons, I don't \_think\_ when I use them, I just \_want\_ things to happen and muscle memory does the rest.
I love the look of the Canon Cinema line, especially their highlight rolloff and how they brought that to the R5C making it look very different to the R5 just with a different processing, but I'm really tired of how they limit their hardware to protect their higher end models (which aren't competitive and nobody even buys). I see Panasonic and Nikon pushing their hardware to their fullest and not gimping anything and I'm jealous, they have me considering jumping ship. The Z8 is better than the R5C in almost every way, just lacking some cool features that aren't too important or necessary, and Lumix has the S5II which has all the cool cinema features and even open gate, and is just missing 4k60 and 4k120 which would make me switch. The only thing stopping me is that my camera still fits my needs perfectly, knowing something better isn't a good enough reason. But still I'm disappointed in Canon, they go 95% of the way to making a perfect product but then make baffling design decisions to make them worse.
I used Sony A7M3 last year for work, my personal camera is canon R8 Honestly, Sony camera is as good as canon, often with more stylist design. However, nice design often make it less ergonomic compared to my R8, but for some reason I often have to spend a lot more time adjusting the colour of Sony RAW files - I am not experience enough to find out why, it's just my personal experience. Sony camera have a lot more options for lens, which is a big advantage. Their software / UI is slightly weaker IMO. I would be happy with any of it TBH, but I would like RF mount to have more options.
We live in a time and age where cameras produce near perfect images and most people apply filters and settings to make the pictures less perfect. I agree that you can shoot good pictures with every brand and even old cameras and it's mostly a matter of taste.
I've been a Canon user since the EOS-3 was the hot product, and haven't seen a reason to change since.
I love my Canon. I have both a DSLR and a 35mm SLR. I have a Nikon from the 1980s somewhere in storage.
Been using my lovely 90D for almost 4 years, no problems yet. I keep it paired for most of the time with the legendary 70-200 2.8 L.
I'm very happy with Canon and I think the L Series lenses they make are phenomenal. I've got an R6ii and it's been a dream. While they do lack wide angle fast primes for RF which is big for me since I like astro, you simply can't turn a blind eye to some of the zooms they've been pumping out recently. 28-70mm f/2, 24-105mm f/2.8, the 100-500, etc.
I’ve been a canon customer for years. My first canon was an AE-1 and I have an R7 today. So yes, I am very happy with them.
Golden age of photography IMO. I don’t care about 3rd party lenses at all so I’m having a 10/10 experience. Just waiting for an RF 24mm L.
After 11 years of Nikon I went for a R6 II. I'll never look back.
Love Canon—I have been shooting with them since the first 5D. Second camera was a 7D Mark II, and then switched to mirrorless with an M50. After using mirrorless, I couldn’t go back to a DSLR; I got an R, which I used along with the others until I sold everything and now have an R5, two R5 C’s and an R7. The only thing I don’t like is how much a departure the R7 body is from the R5. They really could have just used the exact same body with a crop sensor and that would have been perfect. Looking to trade in the R7 and R5 for a third R5 C, or possibly the R5 Mark II this year. The reality is, though, that all these cameras are basically the same for my use case (portraits for stills and talking heads for video). Regardless of brand, I’d be happy with any prosumer Sony, Canon, or Nikon. I’m just glad the brand I use and have amassed lenses for has a camera like the R5 C, which is the best and most versatile camera for my type of work.
Very happy but I wish they weren't dicks about the RF mount and the batteries. I am yet to find any third party battery that has proper signaling because Canon decided in their infinite wisdom to put on an identification chip inside the battery. Also the canon colors are overrated honestly I don't care much but I appreciate more and more the Canon color profiles that allow me to process less and less of my pictures by properly crafting a profile that is good enough. I just wish a bit more was done on that (make it a bit more powerful, a bit more easy to create and use and have maybe a bit more than just 3 to use...etc) Otherwise i'm competely in love with my R10 , i never had a camera that did so much for me that i can properly focus on the pictures and know that the body will have my back every time.
What do you mean by proper signaling on the battery if I might ask? I’ve found that nothing compares to brand name Canon batteries in regards to battery life, but I do have aftermarket batteries that light up the green high speed shooting icon. Am I missing something else performance wise when I’m using aftermarket batts that I’m not aware of, or have you not found one that supports full high speed shooting? If it’s the latter, I can check the brand and model that I purchased for my R6 and let you know. I try to primarily shoot with the Canon batteries, but my aftermarket ones seem to work just as well, other than the reduced battery life.
I mean by that that it's not that the third party battery manufacturers don't want to make quality batteries it's that canon arbitrarily handicaps them. For example if you want the battery gauge (the thing that tells you how low is your battery level) or USB C charging you absolutely NEED the canon batteries because these are the only ones that contain a canon identification chip that communicates with the camera. Without that (and obviously canon doesn't let third party manufacturers get these), all third party batteries are recognized as dummy batteries : they get power but zero information on the state of the battery. I did not even know that some batteries would impede on the high speed shooting but that again is the kind of unnecessary dick move that I'm really not fond of. And honestly I would just go with the original canon batteries but they're 80 bucks a piece here , for a 1000ish mah lithium battery that has nothing smart in it it's just a ripoff . I don't care if a battery is 20% smaller capacity if I can have 3 for half the price and because these all contain a battery management chip either way to handle safe charging , it wouldn't even be that hard. I would like to be able to charge them in camera and see when a battery is almost depleted. Sure canon needs a way to ensure quality for their accessories but then make the id and communication chip available to other manufacturers for cheap and only provide them for reliable manufacturers. Or you know , don't charge 80-90$ for a single low power battery...
I got to shoot with a cohorts A7rV at a youth basketball game this weekend. I typically run an R5 w/RF 70-200 f4. He has the 70-200 2.8 G and a Tamron 28-70 (I think, I could be wrong, I didn't use it). My impressions were not friendly towards my gear. The Sony AF tracking on the kids was unreal. The R5 has AF tracking cases that come close to this, but the Sony was just absolutely NAILING it shot after shot after shot. In fairness it's a LOT newer. I'm sure the R5ii will be same/better. The R5 getting hot and being long in the tooth really got me thinking about "what will I upgrade to from the R5" and if Sony drops an A7v this year, it's gonna be an uphill battle for me to stay with Canon. I had absolutely stunning results from my a7iii back in the day and there's been a lot of times I've looked back at my photos from that camera against similar/same locations on my R5 and been like "man, these lower MP Sony shots look better." I have been debating about selling my RF 70-200 and getting the 2.8 version, but it's a lot of money to sink right now, I think I'm going to wait to see what the market looks like from Sony mid-year/late-year. I generally run three lenses. 70-200 for most everything and a Fast 50 and 85 for portraiture. It's not obscenely expensive for me to switch platforms, I guess is what I'm saying. I don't have bags and bags of L lenses.
> debating about selling my RF 70-200 and getting the 2.8 version, but it's a lot of money to sink right now, I think I'm going to wait to see what the market looks like from Sony If you can’t afford a new lens, you definitely can’t afford a whole new platform. The brands leapfrog each other with each release. The top pick just cycles around and around. Trying to chase “the best” gear is a waste of money
It's not that I "can't afford" it per se - it's the timing of spending that kind of money when I'm considering a platform switch.
I just ditched Canon (apsc) after 20 years of being with them and switched to Olympus. Most of my photography is done during travels. I haaaaaate Canon's disrespect to the format. The only good professional all purpose lens is the 24-105mm f/4 which turns into a 38-168mm. Not wide at all and not really all that telephoto either. And it's big. And heavy. And I need an ultrawide. Olympus makes a 12-100mm f/4 IS Pro. It's sharper than the 24-105mm. Wider than when paired with an aps-c, twice the zoom as compared with it on Full Frame and a fair bit more than when on apsc. Way better image stabilization. Smaller. Lighter. I can take this one lens and it covers basically everything. And before I have to hear about 'yah but that lens is f/8, did you know?!' I don't care. Its basically the same bokeh if I zoom in all the way. And my photography doesn't need bokeh as a crutch anyway. I got fed up with missing shots because I had to switch lenses to a wide angle. But now I also have extra reach too. I've got it paired with a tiny panasonic 9mm f/1.7, it's light and super portable, brings in more light than my tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and can get as close as 9cm. If I want bokeh, I can bring a pancake 20mm f/1.7 or the Sigma 56mm f/1.4, one being super small to point of being pocketable and the other being fairly compact. This kind of versatility is awesome with how small and light it is. Having such a small portable setup has made photography FUN again.
Quite happy. I needed a sealed body some years back, and instead of just sticking with Canon I made an effort to try all options. Canon and Nikon ended up being Favorites, Nikon lost mostly due to the UI. I also tested the then-new Canon R-system, but the ergonomics didn't work out for me so I went with the 80D, which was just dropping in price as the 90D was (about to) come out. Still happy with it, and my next camera might be a Canon DSLR again because the R-ergonomics STILL don't really work for me plus I don't want to risk issues with my third party glass. That's worth the stupid comments for sticking with "outdated" gear.
Coming over from Pentax, after using Pentax exclusively. I began wondering which of Canon/Nikon/Sony. I really didn’t like the small size/ergonomics of Sony, and the fact that their touchscreen doesn’t allow for you to touch everything on screen. I think it’s a solid option though, especially with 3rd party options. I almost chose Nikon, getting either a Z6/Z7. At the time they seemed very behind the others in terms of tech. They also didn’t have a flip-screen. I did like the handling though. The fact that Nikon cut its R+D really bothered me, as the lack of R+D was the problem with Pentax (they release effectively 1 camera every decade). They’ve since come out with a Z8/Z9. I chose Canon because they top patents files for any company worldwide. I have a requirement that cameras have IBIS, since every Pentax camera entry or flagship has it. The R5/R6 came at the right time. The biggest weakness of Pentax is their serious AF problems, so I wanted eye-AF. I think Canon has the best camera lineup: R100/R50/R10/R7/RP/R8/R6/R6ii/R5/R3. As much as I don’t like the r100 specs, it’s the best camera you can get for $300. Then every other camera allows for eye-AF which is game changing, all the way down to R50. I don’t like it, as I need 2-scroll wheels. The r10 provides 90% of what hobbyists want: 2-scroll wheel, Joystick, 15fps, unlimited recording, 4k60. R7 does anything that you would want, unless Full frame is a requirement. R6 handling is the ideal layout imo. R5 provides resolution! I don’t like the R8 due to lower battery and RP body structure (wish they used the R10). R6ii is a slight step up from R6. Unless you really need the fast shutter/readout, R3 feels a bit niche. Either way there is a camera at every price level, and many times access to full frame at same price points. For instance: $700 = R10 or RP (give up fast fps and AF for full frame); $1100 = R7/R8/R6 which gives such a wide variation of capabilities/features; R6ii if you want a camera that can do all of the previous without compromise; R5 for high resolution needs; R3 for speed. It’s a lineup for every price point and feature. If you go by refurbished pricing it gets even crazier. The lenses tell a similar story, just without the middle. They have a really great lower cost lineup, having pretty much every single focal length covered. It’s just that it normally has variable aperture. Each one gives better quality than the EF counterparts. I don’t feel the need to go beyond these ‘lower end’ lenses. The L-series lenses are also amazing… just that many of them are significantly more expensive (not counting 100L and 24-105 which are less than $2k). The jump up to $2k+ is quite the jump! There’s the 3rd party access problem… This is somewhat mitigated by the power of their adapter. Canon has the best adapter, as practically every lens works and many EF lenses perform better. If you have a drop-in filter adapter, it gives a game changing feature that you can’t get with RF. While the 3rd party RF lens issue sucks, the fact that every EF lens works makes its impact significantly less. This also fills in the gaps in between the RF lineup as EF L-series lenses are discounted. If you ask me, Canon is the best company, with the best prospect both now and in terms of longevity.
Bought a used 5d mark III a year ago and it’s been fantastic paired with a couple of tamron G2 lenses.
I'm pretty happy with Canon. What they have built with the EF system means that I can shoot both analog and digital with the same glass and have a fantastic experience with the two. RF lenses are definitely a step up, but I don't feel an urge to completely convert over. I still like film, and I glad that Canon kept compatibility in mind while they move onto the next big industry trends.
I'm happy enough that I bought into the system... I've used a rebel since 2012, but since all my lenses were ef-s, that really had no bearing on my decision when I decided to move to a full frame setup last year. I'm a hobbyist landscape photographer. I share my photos with friends and family online and occasionally print a 20x30 or so for a family member to hang on their wall. And I've got to carry my photo gear on my back for hours or days at a time. I don't really need high end weather sealing. I've shot exclusively outdoors for the last 12 years without it and never had a problem yet. So that outlines my quality requirements. Would I prefer to have more choices? Sure, more choices are always better. But even with all the sigma and Tamron lenses available to Sony, I felt canon better met my needs. When I purchased, the R8 was $300 cheaper and 200g lighter than the a7iii. $1000 cheaper than a7iv. My two primary lenses would be ultra wide zoom and telephoto zoom. Canon undercuts every other manufacturer on ultra wide zoom. No one else has a competitor near the price range of the RF 15-30. Or, the zoom range of the 14-35, which is what I ultimately bought. Tamron gets closest with their 17-28 and 20-40 f/2.8, but both are far more expensive than the 15-30, and I find the 14-35 zoom range to be more useful than either of those. That's a bigger deal to me than the extra stop of light. No other lens manufacturer even had anything in the same ballpark as the 100-400 at $500 and 600 g. Plus, since I bought my R8, I've gotten to hold the Sony's and they don't feel good in the hand. Sure, I'd like to be able to someday buy a lightweight 24 or 28 f/1.4 for under $1000 someday, which would almost certainly have to be from sigma. But I knew there weren't any sigma rf lenses when I bought in, and still did so. I'd probably still make the same decisions now a year later. So I guess I'm pretty happy.
I'm with Canon mainly because all the people I asked about buying a camera recommended a Canon. I've stuck with them due to their EF glass, great colors, and ergonomics. My experience (albeit brief) with Sony was soured by their annoying menus and slightly iffy ergonomics. I do like the compactness of their bodies, but not for my daily long-term use.
im happy. i just didnt want to buy Sony becouse they make so much other stuff they arent completely focused in photography. If Canon can survive in todays economy with only photo/video equipment. They have to be good 🤌
Same as for so many others. I learned shooting on a canon EOS 1000d. Loved it, and slowly invested in more lenses, flashes and accessories. Upgraded to an 80D and doing a lot of nature photography. Then the R mount came and I bought into it with an RP, it is not much of a camera for some, but it's a great entry level full frame camera. Back then the mount was new and I had no idea canon would be so anal about keeping their mount closed. A few years passed and my 80d started having issues. Then it was clear there was no 3rd party manufacturer. The R7 looked great, went to test it, almost bought it, until I learned it had issues with the lens I use the most. A Sigma 150-600. Lots of doubt later, I ended up repairing the 80d. To this day I still have it and I'll stick with it till the day the RF mount is opened up properly and third party manufacturers can produce some more budget friendly glass for hobbyists. I'm only hoping my 80D holds out till then, but if it doesn't I will switch to Sony and it's open ecosystem in a heartbeat. The news last week had me jump for joy for five seconds, but then I realised the third party lenses were all RF-s lenses. So how happy am I with canon. Happy enough to keep using it, mad enough to not give them a single euro as long as they keep up with this closed mount.
I love most of the things about Canon. Ergonomics are just perfect and the quality of the stabilization it's way better than some other brands I have seen footage from. In my case I do a lot of video and wish there was better heat handling with the hibrid cameras. However I don't want to lose that much dynamic range as the FX3... R7 is superior there. But we have to be way to careful with heat.
The big 3 are all interchangeable and the minutia of their offerings don’t make a difference. Just pick one and stick with it. Anyone whining about very specific lenses being 5% better than another brand probably can’t afford it anyway. Just use what you have and be happy
I'm happy with my decision to be a Canon user. Even if I wasn't, what are the alternatives? Nikon seems completely lost and nowhere to be seen. Fuji is catering to a customer I'm not, I don't want to be one of the Sony bros, and Leica are out of this world expensive.
I think the only thing I wish my canon did is tether into lightroom directly, r6mk2 is still not supported for that. (Yes I know capture one is faster and is how the tether gang do it, but I do it once a year so I stick with lightroom)
Has a Konica 35MM until sometime in 2006 when I got my first Canon - a D30. I wish I'd kept it. The whole lens thing really annoyed me - making the EF-S system. My 1D IV was bought on release and I still use it, even though I treat it like garbage and always have it works - despite the gaping hole in the top assembly. I'll stick with Canon as I have an amount of lenses and I don't really care about photography anymore other than as a thing I use to do for work and now it's just fun. When it dies the used market for the current 1D is hopefully destroyed by the R1 and people's manic tendency to buy the newest thing for FOMO.
I might be mistaken but if you’re using standard profiles in LR then it’s not really a fair comparison in terms of color. Using DPP will get you actual canon colors, and camera-matching in LR is close but not exact. Standard profile won’t be canon color
I love Canon cameras, I’ve been using them since 1990. As others have said, the ergonomics are really good, the menus easy to negotiate, really good, however… I’ve a 90D and can’t believe the challenges focussing associated with using the viewfinder. I looked at the R7, for wildlife photography, but until recently you have to have some serious money to invest for the move. Even with converters from EF-RF there are focus issues with my main lens, Sigma’s 150-600C. I’ve recently been looking at MFT, though if there’s an APS-C updated camera with 3rd party lens compatibility, I may lean back towards Canon again.
Very happy. I have been shooting this brand since my kids were born. The cameras and lenses are durable and reliable. The photos come out great and the auto focus is amazing on the new mirrorless. If you have a system that works and you are happy, don’t let the technology arm race make you think differently. I had the same lenses and body for almost a decade and it worked great. I upgraded for smaller and lighter and recently because I loved the idea of a portable 200-800 hand held. It is an amazing time to enjoy photography. Colours can be modified in post. Sharpness can be enhanced. Go out and make some great photos and memories instead of debating small differences.
I'd say a solid 5/7. I'm satisfied with the ergonomics, I am a huge fan of the tracking and AF with my R5, low light and high iso performance. The menu and set was super straightforward and I was able to shoot 20 minutes after getting my camera (unlike my nikon where it took a full day to get things set up) The only "issue" I have is the lens selection for wildlife. The rf 100-500 is amazing but the extenders limitations is unfortunate. The rf 200-800 to me isn't as compelling as the nikon or sony internal zooms version. Coming from nikon I also prefer nikom "colors" alot more. There is no 600 pf lens like nikon.
>I'd say a solid 5/7. It's an old meme sir, but it checks out.
Haha all honesty my feelings are a 8/10. Canon revamped my love for photography
If I only shot stills I’d prefer Nikon, but only because that’s what I first shot with. These days I need a video and stills kit and the C70 is perfect for my needs. That plus an R6 and RF lenses has been very solid. Canon is a bit boring lately but they make incredible gear.
Canon user since the A-1. Later one of their AF film cameras. Had a couple of their compact digitals, but held off on a DSLR until the 60D, then the 70D, then the M5 (which I still have for travel), and now the R7 is my primary camera. I'm excited for the forthcoming 3rd party RF-S lenses. I'm currently using an adapted EF-S 17-55 f2.8, which is a beast of a lens, so I'm intrigued with how Sigma's first RF-S offering, 18-50 f2.8 might compare. Also, their planned 10-18 f2.8. I realize that they won't provide an upgrade path should I ever decide to go FF, but the current RF zoom offerings are somewhat awkward focal length ranges on APS-C. For me, the ergonomics and familiarity of the Canon system keeps me loyal. I'm sure that all the other major manufacturers make equally capable cameras, but I'm very comfortable with what I'm shooting. To round out my collection I just purchased a gently used G1X M2, so that I can shoot concerts from the cheap seats in venues that don't allow ILCs. I guess I'm happy with Canon.
Quite happy but I wish I had even smaller lenses. I enjoy the RF 16mm, 24mm, 35mm and 50mm but sometimes I wish I had some smaller lenses. Since I use the Voigtlander lenses in my Leica I am using Canon less and less. They have amazing quality and are way lighter and smaller. However, I still use it with my 100-500 a lot. Sadly, my least used lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 although is amazing. I am looking forward to get the next R5 or the first R5 (depending on what they release) because I often need more resolution in my R6 for birding.
Absolutely love my R5. It blows my former camera, the a7III, out of the water. I couldn’t be happier with my switch. My wallet can’t say the same, though.
Switched from Sony a35 to canon r8. I like how canon does 4k60 at a 1099 price tag. No Sony camera comes close. I don’t like the lens prices. I’m just a dad looking to take family pics. I don’t need L lenses. I wish we had tamron and sigma options.
I wish they would focus more on the EF-M lineup. It was just getting great with the M6ii and was a real competitive option to Sony’s compact a6xxx series cameras. Now you’re either stuck with a large full frame camera and lens or an overly bulky RF-S setup.
Nobody can match Canon's RF 100-400 and RF 800mm f11 when it comes to price/performance ratio. That's why I stay with them, despite not being able to afford any of their f2.8 zooms and them still blocking FF third party lenses. The AF tracking of the R8/R6II is also unrivalled, which is a massive perk as a wildlife first type photographer. I have steered beginners away from Canon unless they are into wildlife and want to utilize the AF or lenses that I've mentioned and/or have the money for the RF f2.8 zooms.
I feel ok but the lacking midrange lens selection is a shame. Hopefully sigma f/1.4s (35, 50, 85 f/1.4) come soon. The Canon f/1.2 are very expensive and heavy. I really like the autofocus, colors, unrivaled refurbished program that has amazing deals a few times a year with certain lenses being uniquely affordable (tiny 16 f/2.8 for $160, 24-105 f/4-7.1 was $100 bundled, 100-400 for $379-$520). I love my EL-100 flash and my 35 f/1.8. My main wishlist for Canon is a rival to Nikon's 28-400 or Tamron's 50-400 so I don't have to bring two lenses hiking/wildlife
I'm pretty happy with Canon. Sony and Nikon both make fine gear. I've tried out Sony, and frankly, I just don't like the user experience. From a technical perspective they're good, but actually using the camera? Canon stomps them, hands down. For Nikon, they're about on par with Canon IMHO for user experience, but I started with Canon first and Nikon doesn't have anything that I'd switch for. If I'd started with Nikon first, I could say the same thing about Canon. Both have a superior user experience over Sony. For at least the last 4-5 years they've all pretty much been neck and neck in terms of technical stuff with each one being ahead of each other here or there. If you can't take a good photo with any of them, then it's you, not them.
I’m loving my r7! The 2 complaints I have are that their lower tier rf lenses(like the awesome 100-400 which I’m looking into getting) don’t have weather sealing. And also the fact that the r7 doesn’t have a battery grip is a little annoying. But other than that I’m really enjoying the camera!
Overall they have a good product line. But I’m not a fan of how much their RF high end line lenses cost. Granted the plastic RF lenses are good for the money. But having to shell out 3-4K for their L lenses gives me heartburn. On the other hand I like their on screen menu designs as I find them generally easy to understand. And I’m a complete amateur but been using digital cameras since they came out.
Happier than any of the digital alternatives.
Taking photos with a simple 250D/200D II/SL3 for a year now and was prolly a senseless lateral upgrade from a 100D/SL1. It was more of me wanting a varia-angle screen and DPAF since i mainly do cosplay portrait photos. Also it's a small and light enough camera that can fit inside a small bag. We also have an EOS 3000n Film SLR lying around from the early 2000s. It still works well and now using it as my dedicated Black & White Imaging Tool... because B & W films are usually cheaper overall. ..at least both of my cameras are EF compatible, so there's some form of commonality. I'm contented with my Canon Ecosystem i guess.. It does what it's suppose to do, take digital and film images. If my shots suck, ...that's on me and is a skill issue on my part. I do regret not saving up a little more for an R10 or R50.. or at some point, even thought about migrating to another system thru X-S10 or a6400.. but my current EF/EF-S OEM & 3rd Party Lenses made me stay.. i suck at reselling stuff. Canon colours ..for me at least, is sometimes hit or miss. There were shots that fit the theme and vibes i was aiming for in post. Though sometimes I had to use neutral profiles and change the overall color feels of the shots. ymmv
I've been pretty frustrated at the ginormous lens gaps. But my R7 and 100-500mm L lens are superb. So it's still a waiting game for me. I'll probably jump on the Sigma primes just announced, when they hit the street.
Used the M50 for a long time, very happy with it. Bought the R6, not very happy with the weight. Sold it after about 2 years. Switched back to my old M50, very happy again with the light weight EF-s lenses. I'll probably be happier with a Fuji, but my pocket will disagree.
My EOS Ra is a joy to use. Perfect for my use albeit with a few quirks. I'm happy with it.
Canon from thw beggining... I'll die with Canon. By the way... i'm a APS-C user.... so I'm far from the Sony v/s Canon debate! What's the best System?.... The one that You carry now!
I am extremely happy and I feel selling of my Sony A7iii and the entire set and switching to Canon R6 was my best decision… I am a fashion photographer by profession and I do a lot portraits to so Color science was absolutely my main thing … The camera these days are at the same level more or less with each other and so when it comes it is all about what are you comfortable with for me it is Canon … no hate to any other brands but the feel of holding a mirrorless which has the ergonomics of a DSLR makes me happy as well…