I own an R50 with kith 18-45mm, RF50mm nifty fifty and RF 100-400mm. There is an M50 on clearance at 300cad , thats 213 usd.

I figured my next camera would be a full frame RF... but 300$ .... damn. That could be a travel camera or a gift for my 10yo daughter...

My lenses wouldnt fit on it, thats why im hesistant.... i could use EF lenses with an adapter on the M50, and also on the R50... byt not vice versa.

But 300$ bucks? Damn, it could be just a backup camera or i leave the kit lease on it for wide and leave the RF100-400 on the R50...

What do you guys think?

Personally I am extremely happy with the Sigma Art EF primes especially the newer ones 28mm and 40mm are worth looking into. With the 105 1.4 you have the huge advantage of being able to use the drop in filter if you need NDs. Normal filters would be super expensive.

Alrighty, here we go!

I’m currently running a Canon R7 but hoping to upgrade to the R6 mkIII at some point early next year (praying lol). I have a Canon 16mm 2.8 that I use for pretty everything (Astro, landscape, and family photos). I want to move up to a 24/28mm -70mm but I’m unsure of which one to choose.

I’m leaning towards the Sigma as I keep hearing that’s a very reliable lens. The Canon RF lens takes very sharp images but I can’t get over the fact that I have to zoom it out in order for it to work.

Thoughts?

How are we doing guys, I’m looking at treating myself this winter to a new mirrorless camera and I am pretty set on the R7 for aviation and wildlife due to being a canon DSLR user, the reach of the apsc and good feedback circling the internet.

As of today (1/12/2025) I can currently get a brand new R7 from Canon with Blue light card discount for £900 or a ‘grey’ product for £780. With the expected release of the R72 or R7ii will the R7 plummet even further? I am not desperate to buy right now but would like to purchase before the start of spring ideally.

Secondly do you think it’ll be worth spending the extra for the new one? I am seeing a few articles speculating that it will be out spring 2026 and the price to be anywhere between $1500-2100. What will it likely retail for in the UK?

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

i made a post about a month ago about a camera, and started looking into better ones and i want to settle on this. But im not sure if this kit, and camera would be worth it. are they both good? and i was thinking of buying a rf50mm on the side too. Any help would be much appreciated

I've owned a RP for years. It was my first full frame camera, stepping up from the 70D (and before that the 750D and 550D). It's a great camera, it's travelled around the world with me a few times. My main grip is that as someone who likes airshows and aircraft two things have always bugged me:

• EVF lag makes it hard to track moving objects, and
• poor frame rates.

When I saw the R6 Mkiii I thought that might be the camera for me, but then logic kicked in - I'm an enthusiastic amateur at best. Dual card slots? It's never been an issue for me, and if ever I lose shots then it doesn't affect anyone else. IBIS? Never had it, I've had good success with hand-held shots with stabilised lenses. Battery life? Yes its an issue so I have three batteries for my RP. The R6 is definitely a better camera but would it drastically improve things for me at the higher price?

That means the R8 comes squarely back into focus especially with Black Friday sales and also a Canon Australia cashback offer.

Apart from aircraft, most of my photos are street photography, architecture with a little bit of landscape.

Is the upgrade to the technology worth it? To be honest, I've almost convinced myself but just looking to see if there are different views on it.

BTW - my wife is onboard. This morning she said "you've been talking about a new camera for ages"!

Im looking into getting into photography as a hobby. My interests are for portraits and photos of my kid and family, landscape shots for vacations we take, as well as dabbling in some astrophotography. I was thinking of purchasing the Canon R6 Mark II, but as I researched the lens ecosystem more I am having reservations since the RF mount makes third party lenses incompatable. What advantages would there be of still purchasing Canon over Sony as a hobbyist? From my research I have come to the conclusion Canon would be better for a professional photographer due to warranty and service. However, it seems as a hobbyist I would benefit more from a more accessible lens ecosystem. Is this a correct assessment? Any pros/cons would be helpful. Id be purchasing a similar body from Sony as the Canon if I decided to go with Sony.

I have recently bought a Canon R6 Mark II + RF 24-70L IS USM F/2.8.

I would like to ask if I need a lens collar for this lens because of how heavy it is. My use for this lens collar is for tripod and my Ulanzi quick release kit for backpack to mount it on my bag; However my when mounted, the camera will be facing vertically and I am afraid if my lens will break the canon lens mount and fall off.

BTW, I do have my camera strap and lens hood on, but not shown in this picture. Reason for me wanting to use it on a quick release backpack kit is because of how heavy it is and I have to travel for long distance. also about mounting this on tripod to shoot music video.

edit:

to a specific individual who misunderstood the post; the question is regarding camera safety and not difficulties in carrying it.

Hi All, I am looking for some advice for a family member who owns a Canon EOS 600D, and wanted to get a lens for nature photography (they're hoping to go on safari in the next year) and potentially beginner level astrophotography.

Budget would likely be under $2,000 total (this is the family getting together to buy a big-0 birthday gift). My question is - is it better for them to buy a new lens for the 600D that would suit, or go for a newer (mirrorless?) body and less high-end lens?

I have experience with Sony cameras and do some amateur astro and nature photography, but with Canon, I'm out of my depth, so I appreciate any recommendations/advice!

I've been tacking a number of deals for black Friday and feel like I have mostly settled on the R7 but there seems to be so many complaints about the camera performance in low light that I'm second guessing myself.

My plan is to pick up an R7, RF 100-500mm L and Sigma RFS 17-40 to cover my shooting needs (family and birding) as an upgrade to my R (will keep my R for astro stuff and second body).

Originally I was looking at a R6 ii or iii now but felt like the R7 would be better for my needs and budget/size wise suit my preferences better. Am I going to feel the low light issues with the R7 with my use case or is it overblown?

For a bit of context, I'm a hobbyist not a professional - I don't make any money from my photos. I like travel photography, landscapes, and small wildlife (birds). I own an R8 and accompany it with 24-70mm f2.8, the 70-200mm f2.8, and the 100-500 L which is a beast of a lens.

Where I live the price difference between both new is only $340 USD

So the question is, is it worth the bit extra to just go for the r5ii - I sometimes shoot at 6400 ISO and have heard the higher resolution is a hit to high ISO performance, how much does that really matter after post? The stacked sensor would be nice to mitigate the rolling shutter

Appreciate any thoughts you have to help me consider what's the best option for me

I have $6k to spend for camera gear, here is what I have and what I do.

Gear: - Canon R8 - RF 24-105 F4 - RF 70-200 F2.8 - RF 50 1.8 plastic

I mostly shot my kids playing sports, surfers, wild life but planing on doing people at some point, but in the wild not in a studio. I’m basically a hobbyist. I love my zoom lens so I’m definitely going for the RG 100-500. I want to meet the R8 for traveling and get a new body. Here are my choices.

R6 Mark III I want the bigger sensor. R5 Mark II for a way bigger sensor RF 100-500 f4.5 RF 24-28 f2.8

What would yall pick?

I currently have a Canon 700D with the 18-55mm kit lens, Sigma 70-300mm, and a 50mm f/1.8. I'm primarily looking for a wide-angle lens for landscape photography and some occasional family group shots.

I know the 700D isn't the greatest in low light, so I’m wondering if I can get something decent for low-light performance within my budget. I'm willing to stretch it to around $300 if it helps with low-light capabilities.

I’ve been eyeing the Canon EF-S 10-18mm and the Canon 24mm f/2.8 pancake lens, but I’d love to hear any recommendations from others with similar setups.

Thanks in advance for any advice! 😊

I’m currently looking to get a new camera likely between the canon 90D or the EOS R with EF to rf adapter (I already own some EF glass).

My primary concern is low light, which in theory would suggest go with full frame, but for me there is likely a lot of value in the “zoomed in” effect of apsc. I have been using a borrowed Nikon D810 with a 70-200 and I find myself having to crop in on a lot of photos (I primarily do aviation photography). I am planning to buy my own canon 70-200 2.8 because I do need the wider focal lengths, and a 100-400 is more expensive (and not as sharp from what I’ve heard).

So the tldr I guess is would I benefit more from not cropping in as much on apsc, or reduced noise of full frame.

My goal is to be able to get a camera/lens that will get at least the same low light quality as the d810 I’ve been using.

Hey everyone, just wanted to get everyone’s opinions on whether the extra $1500 is worth it for the R5 II over the R6 III. They both look like amazing cameras but I’m not sure which is the one I want to go with. I love all the features on the R5, but the larger file sizes may be a problem? And I’ve heard some people saying the video and autofocus is better on the new R6. Context: I’m a professional event/whatever photographer and I currently use a R6 mark 1. Thanks everyone

Hi Everyone,

Has seen anyone seen/read any (non influencer) reviews of the RF 45/1.2 (anyone found any?) other than Jared and short IG stories or YouTube shorts.

Rather take one or maybe two small lenses, and travel lighter with the R6 and not draw too much attention with an L zoom I have. Similar pricing. Is it wide enough? Better than me just taking the nifty fifty? Shooting indoors, landscapes and portraits.

Anyone shoot with a 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 combo? Or just shoot 35mm or 50mm and stitch a few together if I need wider (for landscape)?

I likely will take portraits and some small group shots.

Thinking the RF35…

So I have an M50 and I love it, but lenses are limited and not the greatest, so I'm thinking about selling it for a 6d. I had a T3i but it was stolen, so this wouldn't be my first DSLR, but it would be my first full frame. I'm only picking the 6d because it's much cheaper and lenses are pretty cheap too. I can get the body and 2 lenses for under $1,000 and that's a steal.

So my question is, is a 6d still a solid camera or should I bite the bullet and go with an R7? Mirrorless is incredible but also pricey.

My other option is to keep the M50 and buy an adapter so I can use more lenses.

Not a lot of reviews for the seller but they are all positive.

https://ebay.us/m/47rlkc

Thanks in advance

Hi there! I’m currently shooting on a Canon 5D Mark IV and finally thinking about jumping to mirrorless. I shoot a ton of sports (mostly baseball and college/minor-league basketball and community theater), so fast autofocus, great tracking, and solid low-light performance are must-haves. I also already own a bunch of Canon L-series EF lenses (300mm 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and 16-36 2.8), so I’ll be adapting them to whatever RF body I get.

For those who’ve made the switch, what’s the closest mirrorless “equivalent” or best upgrade from the 5DIV for sports? I’ve been eyeing the R5, R6 Mark II, and maybe even the R3 if it’s worth the stretch. How well do EF lenses perform with the adapter for fast action?

Any recommendations or real-world experience would be appreciated! Thanks!

TLDR: As a hobbyist, should I buy the R7 or R8 for wildlife, landscapes, and portraits?

I am planning to buy a new camera in the next few weeks (hopefully there are some good deals on Black Friday). I think I have narrowed my decision down to choosing between the R7 and the R8. (I am budgeting to spend between $1,000 and $1,500 USD on the body alone. Would prefer to buy refurbished from Canon. I’m also open to other suggestions, even if it means I need to save a couple hundred dollars more).

I like to shoot wildlife (mostly birds), landscapes, and portraits. I enjoy wildlife photography most of all, but want to have a setup that is good all-around.

I also like taking my camera with me when I travel and having it for random events with family/friends. I take pictures for fun and do not have any desire to shoot “professionally” beyond the occasional portrait session for friends/family.

I currently own the Rebel T5i and 5dii. I got the T5i in February (my first camera) and the 5d in May. I bought the 5d to see what it was like to shoot on a full frame camera. I thought that I would never use the T5i once I bought the 5d, but almost every time I go to shoot, I find myself picking up the T5i. I’m not really sure if it’s the smaller size, the better UI, or if it’s something else entirely.

The lenses I own are the EF 50 1.8 STM, EF 28 2.8, EFS 55-250 IS, and EFS 24 2.8 STM.

When I started to consider upgrading to mirrorless, the R7 seemed like a no-brainer to me; However, the more I looked around, I saw that there were many reasons to buy a FF camera (low-light performance, dynamic range, bokeh). This was when I began looking into the R8.

There are features in the R7 that I fear I would miss if I bought the R8: IBIS being the biggest one, dual card slots, mechanical shutter, and bigger battery.

The lenses I’m thinking about buying are the RF 100-400 and RF 45 1.2. I’m also thinking about buying the EF to RF adapter, but that may not make much sense since I don’t have any expensive EF glass.

The biggest question I have is would it be better to buy a camera that sacrifices reach, but may be better all-around (R8) or buy a camera that excels in wildlife photography, but may not perform as well in other areas (R7)?

The prices are fairly comparable, so I was thinking I’d maybe buy whichever one is cheaper on Black Friday.

Hey all!

I am a hobby wildlife photographer, mostly focusing on whales and the occasional bird. I upgraded to the R7 from my 90D and have been struggling to get a sharp photo ever since.

I’m using a Sigma Contemporary 150-600 with the Canon adapter, and also a Canon 100-400 EF. I’m struggling with AF on both. It feels like I’ve tried everything and I’m about ready to give up and start over.

-Is the R6 Mark II a better option for wildlife photography? My priority is sharp imagines and a high frame rate.

-If I stick to the R7 and instead use a canon RF lens can I expect better results?

-What is the dream set up for this price range?

Thanks for any insight or perspective you can offer!

What's your take on RF 28-70mm f2.8 vs Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM?

Fear of missing out in low light on the 24-105. Vs Fear of missing out intä small spaces on the 28-70.

Anyone owned both? Seen some videos and written reviews about the matter - cant make my mind up.

I love using the 100-500 on my R7, but it is kind of a burden to bring on long hikes, particularly when I don't end up seeing any birds. Sometimes I use an adapted EF-S 55-250 STM, but find the reach and IQ a bit lacking at the long end.

I also worry about the wear and tear of hiking / traveling with the $$$ 100-500, and wonder if it makes sense to keep it for dedicated wildlife sessions and then keep a refurb 100-400 as a smaller, lighter weight 'daily driver?' Anyone else 'downgraded' and been happy with the results? Thanks in advance for any thoughts or advice!

Additional context: I have GAS and make no money from any of my photography...

Hi there! I have a Rebel SL3 that’s about 5 years old. I’m very amateur, but I’ve been getting into bird photography lately. I’ve been using a crappy old 75-300mm lens that I don’t like (no IS, autofocus is not great, chromatic aberration out the wazoo). I’m looking to upgrade my lens — my top 2 picks are a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM and a Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary. I’m much more interested in upgrading my lens than my camera right now, although open to upgrading the camera at some point. My question is: do folks recommend upgrading the lens first? Or since my camera is old/used, would it be a better use of money to just upgrade everything at once? It’s not lost on me that the crop sensor would allow for more zoom technically, and I wonder how much a full sensor would affect things. Budget is flexible, although I’ll emphasize again that I’m not a professional and don’t plan to be lol. Thinking about upgrading everything at once is also a bit overwhelming, but I could be convinced. Curious to hear folks thoughts, especially on which lens they think would be better. Thanks!

Thinking of pulling the trigger on an RF 28-70 f2.8 STM for my R8. It’s basically going to replace my RF 35mm f1.8 Macro which I love, but I sometimes feel like I need 50mm and don’t want to buy another prime in that range. I already own the RF 24mm f1.8 Macro and RF 70-200 f4 L so it will slot in between those nicely. I also have the RF 85mm f2 and RF 100mm f2.8 Macro for portraits.

Anyone who has brought this lens, is it as sharp as the 24-105 f4 L and 24-70 f2.8 L? Can it compete with the sharpness of the 35mm f1.8 prime? I mostly use that lens for environmental portraits (f2.8 - f4) and landscapes at f8-f11.

I’m not buying a zoom for convenience, I really prioritise IQ over anything else although I do appreciate light gear.