Chowing a new camera: Which lens system is better: Canon RF, or Nikon Z?

[TechGizmoDude]

12 hours ago, Action_Johnson said:

I agree with GDR, If you can swing it, I would go R6 and if you need to, a Canon brand EF>RF adapter.

 

My studiomate shoots with a Z6 and it's FINE, but that's about it.

No vertical grip option means when he's using lenses like his 24-70 2.8, it's awkward as F and the USB-C port is so low on the side, the cable needs to make a pretty gnarly 180 degree turn to fit into the tetherplate.

 

IQ is what you'd expect out of the 24MP Sony chip, AF seems fine most of the time, but not as good as the rest, one card slot (although an extremely fast one), is again, fine. 

 

IBIS on the Z is extremely disappointing in my experience, than again I primarily shoot with an E-M1X, which is the gold standard for IS systems.

 

The Z's in my opinion are just OK cameras. The new Z50 seems good for the price, I'll say that. 

 

The lenses for the R are objectively better, but also obviously targeted towards the pro market.

 

Last I used an EOS R, I couldn't remember if it had a pinpoint AF mode like the Z does, that was the one thing on the Z that was really fantastic.

 

The R6 and R5 basically solve my complaints on the R, I'll likely be replacing my D800E with an R5 and switching to Canon for my mirrorless future when the M1X and my Nikon SLR's aren't good enough anymore. 

Should I get the adapter with the filters, control ring, or the basic one?

[TechGizmoDude]

19 hours ago, bowrilla said:

Well, for landscapes, you don't need much ISO or AF.  You can pretty easily go (and often want to go) to shutter speeds of up to a second and longer - smoothes out water, potentially also skies and up to a second usually works pretty well at night without getting star trails. In fact, many landscape photographers use ND filters to get longer exposure times while controlling the light. So no need for an ISO monster. Landscapephotography doesn't put your AF to the test either - nothing moving around and you usually close your aperture quite far down to get larger DoF so it's not that critical. The sensor of the D3400 is fine and has a respectable dynamic range that's mostly on par with most modern cameras. Looking at the test images available, ISO1600 looks usable with a managable amount of noise - use the noise reduction when post processing your RAW images - a little bit worse than i.e. a 5d mkii, a lot finer though. Difference ~1 stop I estimate. 

 

Your 18-55mm lens on your APS-C camera has a maximum field of view of a 27mm on full frame. That's VERY narrow for landscape work. You want to look for something in the 16-20mm full frame equivalent ball park or think about panoramic shots. That requires a nodal point mount for your tripod (which I hope you have because otherwise spending 2.5k on a new camera is pretty futile if you skip most of the non-camera gear stuff.

 

Animals might require a better AF, okay, but that also depends on what kind of animals you're taking pictures of and in which situations. Still, the D3400 is an okay camera.

 

WIth a budget of $2500, I'd say don't spend more than 900-1200 on a body. The rest is money for your lens(es). If you don't have a semi decent tripod: put 150-250 bucks aside for one.

 

Camera options in that price range, mirrorless only and using most of the allocated budget:

Canon RP
Fujifilm X-T3

Fujifilm X-T30

Sony a6300

Sony a6400

Sony a6500

Sony a7ii

Nikon Z50

*ignoring Canon EOS M because it just doesnt offer good lens options and ignoring MFT because of less choice on the wide end and worse ISO performance than APS-C and FF

 

P.S.: I wouldn't go for screw on filters anymore - they are expensive and you need step up rings to adapt it to different lenses which might add vignetting, a bit of dirt and they get stuck - there are several reasonably priced square filter systems with holders and reasonably priceds filters. Ignore UV filter and pick a good ND filter with something around ND1.2 or darker and maybe (!) a polarizing filter. 

 

If I were you, I'd skip the new camera body and only aim for lenses.

I also do some sports photography, must mostly other stuff I mentioned earlier.  What do you think about spending money on a R6 and then buying an RF to EF adapter and buying used high-end EF lenses? Might cut the cost a little and I can always buy some high-end RF glass used in the future. Also, what recommendations do you have for square filter kits?

[TechGizmoDude]

19 hours ago, bowrilla said:

Well, for landscapes, you don't need much ISO or AF.  You can pretty easily go (and often want to go) to shutter speeds of up to a second and longer - smoothes out water, potentially also skies and up to a second usually works pretty well at night without getting star trails. In fact, many landscape photographers use ND filters to get longer exposure times while controlling the light. So no need for an ISO monster. Landscapephotography doesn't put your AF to the test either - nothing moving around and you usually close your aperture quite far down to get larger DoF so it's not that critical. The sensor of the D3400 is fine and has a respectable dynamic range that's mostly on par with most modern cameras. Looking at the test images available, ISO1600 looks usable with a managable amount of noise - use the noise reduction when post processing your RAW images - a little bit worse than i.e. a 5d mkii, a lot finer though. Difference ~1 stop I estimate. 

 

Your 18-55mm lens on your APS-C camera has a maximum field of view of a 27mm on full frame. That's VERY narrow for landscape work. You want to look for something in the 16-20mm full frame equivalent ball park or think about panoramic shots. That requires a nodal point mount for your tripod (which I hope you have because otherwise spending 2.5k on a new camera is pretty futile if you skip most of the non-camera gear stuff.

 

Animals might require a better AF, okay, but that also depends on what kind of animals you're taking pictures of and in which situations. Still, the D3400 is an okay camera.

 

WIth a budget of $2500, I'd say don't spend more than 900-1200 on a body. The rest is money for your lens(es). If you don't have a semi decent tripod: put 150-250 bucks aside for one.

 

Camera options in that price range, mirrorless only and using most of the allocated budget:

Canon RP
Fujifilm X-T3

Fujifilm X-T30

Sony a6300

Sony a6400

Sony a6500

Sony a7ii

Nikon Z50

*ignoring Canon EOS M because it just doesnt offer good lens options and ignoring MFT because of less choice on the wide end and worse ISO performance than APS-C and FF

 

P.S.: I wouldn't go for screw on filters anymore - they are expensive and you need step up rings to adapt it to different lenses which might add vignetting, a bit of dirt and they get stuck - there are several reasonably priced square filter systems with holders and reasonably priceds filters. Ignore UV filter and pick a good ND filter with something around ND1.2 or darker and maybe (!) a polarizing filter. 

 

If I were you, I'd skip the new camera body and only aim for lenses.

Any recommendations on a wide angle lense for RF or EF?

[bowrilla]

25 minutes ago, TechGizmoDude said:

What do you think about spending money on a R6 and then buying an RF to EF adapter and buying used high-end EF lenses? Might cut the cost a little and I can always buy some high-end RF glass used in the future.

That's spending money at the wrong stuff. As long as the sensor is semi-decent, the image quality is mostly the lens and not the sensor of your camera body. The R6 will most likely use the whole of your budget leaving no money for good glass. Sorry, but that's a waste of money at this point.

 

7 minutes ago, TechGizmoDude said:

Any recommendations on a wide angle lense for RF or EF?

Assuming, you'll want to go full frame as indicated by your very expressed whish to make the R6 work (bear in mind: full frame glass is more expensive and heavier than what you have):

Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 11-24 f/4 L USM

Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L ii USM

Canon EF 14 f/2.8 L ii USM

Canon EF 20 f/2.8 USM

Sigma Art 12-24 f/4 HSM 

Sigma Art 14-24 f/2.8 HSM

Sigma Art 14  f/1.8 HSM

Sigma Art 20 f/1.4 HSM

Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 HSM

 

I'd sincerely recommend a zoom lens for landscape work or you will have to recrop/recompose later or you might need a panoramic mount. Recommendations are highlighted.

39 minutes ago, TechGizmoDude said:

I also do some sports photography, must mostly other stuff I mentioned earlier

So basically you're doing a bit of everything and you don't really know yet where to go. Nothing wrong with that but again: you are not limited by your camera. You are however limited by your lens.

 

I very much stick with my recommendation: don't throw all your money on a body that won't give you significant improvements. Invest in glass and if at all, consider a lower priced camera body or buy used!

[YellowJersey]

1 hour ago, TechGizmoDude said:

Is the difference in dynamic range and noise major and worth the money?

The Z5 and Z6 will likely have very similar performance. We don't know yet what the R6's sensor is going to be like, particularly after DxoMark botched their 1Dx mkIII tests.

[TechGizmoDude]

51 minutes ago, bowrilla said:

That's spending money at the wrong stuff. As long as the sensor is semi-decent, the image quality is mostly the lens and not the sensor of your camera body. The R6 will most likely use the whole of your budget leaving no money for good glass. Sorry, but that's a waste of money at this point.

 

Assuming, you'll want to go full frame as indicated by your very expressed whish to make the R6 work (bear in mind: full frame glass is more expensive and heavier than what you have):

Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 11-24 f/4 L USM

Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L ii USM

Canon EF 14 f/2.8 L ii USM

Canon EF 20 f/2.8 USM

Sigma Art 12-24 f/4 HSM 

Sigma Art 14-24 f/2.8 HSM

Sigma Art 14  f/1.8 HSM

Sigma Art 20 f/1.4 HSM

Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 HSM

 

I'd sincerely recommend a zoom lens for landscape work or you will have to recrop/recompose later or you might need a panoramic mount. Recommendations are highlighted.

So basically you're doing a bit of everything and you don't really know yet where to go. Nothing wrong with that but again: you are not limited by your camera. You are however limited by your lens.

 

I very much stick with my recommendation: don't throw all your money on a body that won't give you significant improvements. Invest in glass and if at all, consider a lower priced camera body or buy used!

I see, but is the the current line cropped sensor Nikon cameras something worth buying lenses for that I may not be able to use in the future? I’m just curious to see what you think. 
 

Do you think something like a Nikon Z5 or an EOS RP a better option then for a $2500 budget?

 

If I had $3500 to $4000 to spend (I don’t) would an EOS R6, a 24-70mm f/2.8, 14-24mm f/2.8, a nice tripod, and a filter kit be a solid choice?

[bowrilla]

15 minutes ago, TechGizmoDude said:

I see, but is the the current line cropped sensor Nikon cameras something worth buying lenses for that I may not be able to use in the future?

You can use full frame lenses on crop bodies. Performance can vary a bit (some are better suitable than others, you need to look the specific lenses up) but it will work. The issue is usually to find good wide angle glass for smaller sensors. Because 20mm on a crop sensor has the same FoV as a 30mm full frame lens. So you're realling looking for below 16mm for your APS-C camera to get a nice field of view for landscape.

 

By the way: there's no general rule saying you NEED to go full frame at any point even when going pro. That's nonsense. You only need to go full frame if you need the resolution or you need super wider angle stuff (talking 10-ish mm). 

 

And yes, as I said, the RP is definitely more sensible than an R6 on a $2500 budget. As mentioned before, on that budget I'd aim for max 50% for the body, less would be advisable.

 

Still: I'd consider not to upgrade the body and instead invest in glass. You'll gain much more from that.

[GDRRiley]

3 hours ago, TechGizmoDude said:

Will the RF to EF adapter lower image quality?

not all at. it is just a physical/electrical no optics

[GDRRiley]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433717-REG/canon_mount_adapter_ef_rf.html

"This simple adapter retains full autofocus and image stabilization capabilities and contains no optical components"

wow the EF to R doesn't have one unless you get an ND or Polarizer which can be removed

@TechGizmoDude

[LyondellBasell]

On 7/24/2020 at 1:03 PM, TechGizmoDude said:

What do you think about spending money on a R6 and then buying an RF to EF adapter and buying used high-end EF lenses? Might cut the cost a little and I can always buy some high-end RF glass used in the future. Also, what recommendations do you have for square filter kits?

On 7/24/2020 at 1:23 PM, TechGizmoDude said:

Any recommendations on a wide angle lense for RF or EF?

Here's my background: started with a t6i and kit lens. Bought EF L glass for upgrades. Jumped up to EOS R two years ago, been working with the R || RF>EF Adapters || EF Glass ever since

 

Since we're looking for a budget-conscious solution here, I'd buy the R instead of the R6. Wait two more months until the R5 is freely available, the price on used/new R's will drop, and you can get a 30MP FF for a steal.

 

Is the touch bar stupid? Yes. Is it a deal-breaker? No.

The camera is usable for everything but critical sport shooting. I've used it shooting out the back of a camera car flying down the track shooting motorcycles, and the focus/controls/speed got the job done just fine.

 

I would recommend just buying RF glass if you see yourself on the platform. You CAN still experience native-level performance when adapting EF glass, but the extra length of the adapter, and the remarkable quality of the new RF glass means that even though you *might* be saving a few bucks buying the EF version, it's not going to be worth it for continued use.

 

If you're determined to get an RF body and adapt it to EF, I will say, the adapters are really nice. The ND filter is amazing for when you need to shoot video and want to swap between different lenses but don't want to have to buy filters for each lens.

The polarizing filter does a good job but won't *totally* kill indoor reflections on certain types of glass if that's what you're hoping to use it for. It's definitely geared more towards outdoors-glare-killing.

[Action_Johnson]

I agree about the adapter situation. Stick to the RF stuff unless you routinely use a lens that's not in the native mount: eg  24mm f/1.4, any of the T/S's, any of the macros...

[YellowJersey]

On 7/23/2020 at 11:10 PM, Action_Johnson said:

I agree with GDR, If you can swing it, I would go R6 and if you need to, a Canon brand EF>RF adapter.

 

My studiomate shoots with a Z6 and it's FINE, but that's about it.

No vertical grip option means when he's using lenses like his 24-70 2.8, it's awkward as F and the USB-C port is so low on the side, the cable needs to make a pretty gnarly 180 degree turn to fit into the tetherplate.

 

IQ is what you'd expect out of the 24MP Sony chip, AF seems fine most of the time, but not as good as the rest, one card slot (although an extremely fast one), is again, fine. 

 

IBIS on the Z is extremely disappointing in my experience, than again I primarily shoot with an E-M1X, which is the gold standard for IS systems.

 

The Z's in my opinion are just OK cameras. The new Z50 seems good for the price, I'll say that. 

 

The lenses for the R are objectively better, but also obviously targeted towards the pro market.

 

Last I used an EOS R, I couldn't remember if it had a pinpoint AF mode like the Z does, that was the one thing on the Z that was really fantastic.

 

The R6 and R5 basically solve my complaints on the R, I'll likely be replacing my D800E with an R5 and switching to Canon for my mirrorless future when the M1X and my Nikon SLR's aren't good enough anymore. 

I disagree with the R6 on the simple basis of price. Seems way too much money for what you get, imho.

[Lord Vile]

41 minutes ago, YellowJersey said:

I disagree with the R6 on the simple basis of price. Seems way too much money for what you get, imho.

Just had a gander and 2.5K does seem a tad steep

[YellowJersey]

21 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Just had a gander and 2.5K does seem a tad steep

Especially compared to the Nikon Z5 is just shy of $1400 USD, compared to $2500 USD for the Canon R6. The R6 is way over priced in comparison. When comparing the Z5 to the R6, the Z5 is a no-brainer.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, YellowJersey said:

Especially compared to the Nikon Z5 is just shy of $1400 USD, compared to $2500 USD for the Canon R6. The R6 is way over priced in comparison. When comparing the Z5 to the R6, the Z5 is a no-brainer.

What are the lens prices of the R6 vs the Z5? 

[YellowJersey]

36 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

What are the lens prices of the R6 vs the Z5? 

Depends on the lens, but they seem to be generally about on par. The Canon and Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 lenses are within $50 of each other while the 70-200mm 2.8 lenses are within $100 of each other, with Nikon being the slightly less expensive options. OP said he's into landscape and animals and has a budget of around $2500, so I think the Z5 would make way more sense as it's $1400 and leaves $1100 for lenses, whereas the R6 body alone is $2500. I think the Z5 delivers a lot more value for money and the R6 doesn't deliver much, if anything, for the extra $1100.@TechGizmoDude

[Egg-Roll]

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

What are the lens prices of the R6 vs the Z5? 

Both have adapters for previous gens lenses so relatively cheap, however F mount can get a little confusing due to how long Nikon used it. The Nikon adaptor looks ugly and obvious whereas Canons doesn't it's fairly flush to the lens I have attached.

 

On 7/26/2020 at 6:39 PM, YellowJersey said:

I disagree with the R6 on the simple basis of price. Seems way too much money for what you get, imho.

That's Canon for you, imho the R6 is the poor man's R5 or the backup camera for a R5 user, once you think of it like that it is actually a good price considering it is a Canon camera considering their past with prices and options in cheaper cameras... RP and R...

 

Not to mention I (personally) can't even consider a camera with only a tilt screen, had it on the IS S5, has it on the R and RP, there is no excuse for a more expensive camera not having it. I was thinking about gifting my RP to family and getting the R6(or pony up for the R5) however the pandemic seems to have no end so I can't afford doing so. Is the R6 overpriced? Yes however so was the RP and the R, yet people still bought them including me. The R series are good cameras just need to justify the price lol... I can suffer the pixel loss for the benefits gotten in the R6, just like how my family member could benefit from the RP being sent to them. If canon throws in a free extra battery and a adaptor like they did with the R/RP it would be worth the extra cost over the Z5.

 

For OPs budget I support getting the RP over anything, great camera esp for its current price.

[YellowJersey]

1 minute ago, Egg-Roll said:

Both have adapters for previous gens lenses so relatively cheap, however F mount can get a little confusing due to how long Nikon used it. The Nikon adaptor looks ugly and obvious whereas Canons doesn't it's fairly flush to the lens I have attached.

 

That's Canon for you, imho the R6 is the poor man's R5 or the backup camera for a R6 user, once you think of it like that it is actually a good price considering it is a Canon camera considering their past with prices and options in cheaper cameras... RP and R...

 

Not to mention I (personally) can't even consider a camera with only a tilt screen, had it on the IS S5, has it on the R and RP, there is no excuse for a more expensive camera not having it. I was thinking about gifting my RP to family and getting the R6(or pony up for the R5) however the pandemic seems to have no end so I can't afford doing so. Is the R6 overpriced? Yes however so was the RP and the R, yet people still bought them including me. The R series are good cameras just need to justify the price lol... I can suffer the pixel loss for the benefits gotten in the R6, just like how my family member could benefit from the RP being sent to them. If canon throws in a free extra battery and a adaptor like they did with the R/RP it would be worth the extra cost over the Z5.

 

For OPs budget I support getting the RP over anything, great camera esp for its current price.

I just don't think the R6 is competitive against the Z5 when you factor in price. The Z5 seems like the no-brainer. As for the RP, I can see your point there.

[Egg-Roll]

2 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

I just don't think the R6 is competitive against the Z5 when you factor in price. The Z5 seems like the no-brainer. As for the RP, I can see your point there.

If I just started like OP and was looking at R6 vs Z5 then yea Z5 based on specs for price, for me however it's Canon due to glass etc. For someone looking at mirrorless get the one that offers the free adaptor, or go Sony lol. If one can't justify the R6 price there is the RP or R tho I do agree with the complaints about the touch bar on the R, ewww, don't own one happy I didn't.

 

Imo tho if the R6 comes with a bunch of free stuff like my RP did then it is worth the initial price because the adaptor makes it look cleaner if anything and if a clean setup matters to you. The only greaf I have with Nikons Z mount (next to the Z5s tilt only) and the adaptor to F mount, is the F mount itself. It has been out for so long there are different variants of it as I found out when I bought 3 Nikon D1X off of Ebay, some of which can harm digital cameras apparently, whereas every Canon EF mount works on all RF cameras via the adaptor, no issues just buy(I'm using a lens as old as me on my RP). So in that sense the extra cost for no worries could be a plus to some as well, but if one doesn't need 4K, dual slots (buy the Sony Tough card if not), slow motion or in body stabilization RP is the better choice, really the 4 perks of the R6 vs RP.

[bowrilla]

3 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

I just don't think the R6 is competitive against the Z5 when you factor in price. The Z5 seems like the no-brainer. As for the RP, I can see your point there.

All prices are coming from European sites so US prices may vary a bit ...

 

According to the first reviews, the new Canon AF is astonishing. But yes, I wouldn't choose the R6 as a new camera system if all bets were off. The Nikon Z5 and also the Z6 are better deals overall. And there are also the Sony A7iii and A7Rii for a lot less than the initial R6 price (though Canon prices are known for quickly dropping) and the A7Riii is about the same. 

 

The real question is though: what do you do with a budget of ~$2500 when you don't have anything to keep, no investment in any system, etc...

 

I stick with my recommendation: max 50% on the body. That's then pretty much the RP and nothing else. If you stretch it you might get the Z6 and Z5. The offered bundle lenses within the budget are all (or mostly?) terribly dark and not worth the money imho. There's nothing to gain with these cheap lenses, no real improvements. For the Nikon side (Nikon F mount, so an adaptor is neede) there are both a Tamron and a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for ~1000 and a Nikon lens for F mount for ~1400. The native Z mount glass is ~1900. The Z6 with FTZ adaptor is ~1600. The RP with the EF adaptor is ~1150, both 24-70 f/2.8 lenses from Sigma and Tamron are also available as EF versions for about the same money. The Canon 24-70 for EF mount is ~1550 and the RF one is ~2000.

 

Considering the OP wants to do landscape having a semi-decent tripod is a sensible thing. That's another ~150-200. A second (original) battery is probably ~50-70, a decent memory card another 20-40. Some strong ND filter (and maybe a filter holder) is probably ~100 again. Sure, you could go cheaper on many things but cheaping out on the lens doesn't make much sense when the OP is missing IQ with his current cam. Taking a step back and you'll still spend 800-ish on a lens. And there's no dedicated specialty lens yet for portraits (faster aperture for more bokeh), landscapes (wider for the bigger landscapes), sporting (reach) or birding (lots of reach). The 24-70 f/2.8 are great general purpose lenses and will cover many use cases, but they are not ideal for most of those genres.

 

At the end of the day $2500 is just very tight for a new full frame camera system. If it has to be full frame (for what ever reason) and if it has to be new (again, for whatever reason) then the RP is the way to go. 

[Lord Vile]

7 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

Depends on the lens, but they seem to be generally about on par. The Canon and Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 lenses are within $50 of each other while the 70-200mm 2.8 lenses are within $100 of each other, with Nikon being the slightly less expensive options. OP said he's into landscape and animals and has a budget of around $2500, so I think the Z5 would make way more sense as it's $1400 and leaves $1100 for lenses, whereas the R6 body alone is $2500. I think the Z5 delivers a lot more value for money and the R6 doesn't deliver much, if anything, for the extra $1100.@TechGizmoDude

For that budget you could go to any of the other brands and get a couple of lenses too. 

[YellowJersey]

@TechGizmoDude https://www.dpreview.com/news/0478303741/nikon-offer-lets-you-trade-up-any-camera-to-a-nikon-z5-with-a-special-100-bonus-offer