So, of course I had to do this comparison. I got me a little bit more darkness and made a similar test for the Sony A7 iv (with the Sigma 28-70 / F2.8), the Canon EOS 80D and 50D (both with Sigma 17-50 / F2.8).
At this point its probably tiring for most people, but I’m dumping my result here anyways - perhaps someone out there is interested…
As above I tried to do a fair comparison with regards to field of view, depth of focus and ISO Settings (== equal shot), using the formulas in the above referenced article.
So the columns should be comparable regarding their settings (I think) and the rows contain the A7, the 80D and the 50D.
Thanks, this is actually very helpful to me. I can see the usual Canon “banding” is clearly present on the 50D but that seems to be gone on the 80D which is great. Other than that the 50D and 80D don’t look much different at high ISO.
It does seem like at ISO below 1600 there isn’t a ton of difference between the Sony and 80D (so if you plan to shoot at high ISO a lot, the Sony is a worthwhile upgrade).
This was in fact exactly what I did yesterday, and the results on the 80D are pretty underwhelming - maybe 1/3 in focus using the viewfinder and even less than that using subject tracking and the screen. Maybe this is to be expected in burst mode, e.g. if you were to instead shoot in Continuous AF and instead just snap a single shot, maybe it could keep up? I’d be shooting mostly with an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (e.g. the almost-L-quality EF-S lens) so I’d hope that one at least would be able to keep up.
This is the exact same dilemma I have; Canon seems to be focusing mostly on full frame for mirrorless and the price to jump all in to RF is high. Plus the need to buy the EF to RF adapter, battery life, etc. My understanding is that the 90D is a relatively modest upgrade from the 80D; it also doesn’t seem to be readily available used, whereas the 80D is widely available so I think I’d lean that route unless there’s a specific reason to really search for a used 90D.
You can pretty much predict tracking AF performance based on when the camera was designed. The 80D is from 2016, which was 9 years ago. Tracking needs computational power, and the older the chip, the less of that you have available.
This is the exact same dilemma I have; Canon seems to be focusing mostly on full frame for mirrorless and the price to jump all in to RF is high. Plus the need to buy the EF to RF adapter, battery life, etc. My understanding is that the 90D is a relatively modest upgrade from the 80D; it also doesn’t seem to be readily available used, whereas the 80D is widely available so I think I’d lean that route unless there’s a specific reason to really search for a used 90D.
To be fair, Canon started issuing cropped sensor ML cameras lately, R7, R10. There are other models too I think.
In my work I use both cropped and full frame, having 5DmkIV and 90D. I love them both, each one has its own beauty and use.
I’m not sure about used cameras, 90D can be purchased new as it is still in production. You can do online comparison of 80D and 90D and see if it’s viable.
This is true, but RF glass seems to be pretty expensive and there are only a couple of RF-S lenses available so far.
I suppose another option would be to consider the EOS M6 mk ii, which is newer and has good focus tracking, but then you’re buying into the end-of-the-line EF-M ecosystem. Maybe that’s not really a problem though?
Indeed. So far I have been more than underwhelmed by current RF glass offerings. It’s either budget-friendly or super high-quality, pro grade with insane prices. Nothing in-between or semi-pro.
On the other hand, RF 50mm f1.8 is inferior to the same EF 1.8 STM lens optically, yet almost 2x the price. A ripoff.
There is nothing like EF 50mm f1.4 on the horizon. And when it eventually arrives, it will probably cost 2 to 3x the price of EF 50mm f1.4.
If I were you I wouldn’t buy any M6, as you said it’s end of the line. Depending on your budget you can check R7 or R10. I remember there were promotions with a free adapter. But then again 90D was on sale too, costing less than 1k euros with 4y warranty.
@maboleth you articulated it perfectly; there seems to be no RF solution for the “prosumer”.
That’s true, but the R50 really seems to be geared towards people upgrading from using a smartphone for photos, not a “prosumer”. From what I read, its options for doing more manual adjustments are limited
What do people think about Canon’s policy on 3rd party lenses for the RF mount? I have two EF mount Canons and have been very happy with them, but if I could justify buying another camera, which I can’t, I’d think twice about the RF ones. Also Canon weren’t nice over CR3 files of course. Sony’s open approach to 3rd party lenses seems a lot better.
I bought the R7 last November and have been pretty happy with it as an upgrade from my 7DII. The eye autofocus is nice, but spotty at times. It’s an improvement from my old system but not a game changer.
My only RF glass is the 18-150mm that came with it and I have to admit is a good walkabout lens. My others are EF mount, which work well with the adapter. But yes, RF glass is pricey and I’m not sure its worth it. I currently use the Sigma 150-600C with the R7 and the adapter and it works as well as the lens did with the 7DII. Feedback from my friends who use the analogous RF100-500 is that I’d get better focus performance and some improvement in sharpness. I’m not sure that the improvements are worth the cost at nearly $3,000 USD
@RawConvert - I’m unhappy by not surprised by Canon’s decision on 3rd party lenses. I understand they made a business decision to keep consumers within their brand, but the third party vendors often filled a void that the camera makers weren’t filling. However, Canon seems to be coming out with an aggressive RF lens roadmap and the choices are getting overwhelming, especially in the long telephoto ranges.
Thanks for your honest review.
It’s almost in-sync to what is my own experience. I have briefly used R6 and while it was great for my manual Samyang 135mm F2 due to focus peaking that produced outstanding and consistent results, it was far too pricey for what it delivered. And battery is/was just crap compared to DSLRs.
They also cut the camera shelf-life from 4 to 2 years and we already have R6mk2. Huh.
I’m not sold yet. My current systems just work. I can shoot just about anything and get focused, sharp results, noise/DR totally fine. AF is the main selling point for MLs, since they cannot take size as the wildcard anymore. Mirrorless aren’t smaller nor lighter at all, esp. not with adapters.
For someone shooting sports or fast moving subjects, I guess MLs are on the right track to be great. But even then there are ways to get great results. After all, best photography out there was taken with manual cameras and DSLRs, it’s not that MLs invented good focusing.
There will be 4-5 years if not a decade for R line to fully mature, with much more lenses, better battery life and all. Maybe even the prices to settle down. Unless something groundbreaking happens, I think I will stick to my 5dmk4 and 90d for awhile.
I shoot Fuji, and for the longest time, Fuji did not support third party lenses. That’s not quite as bad as Canon actually litigating against third parties. But it was bad enough. Fuji lenses are expensive. Their zooms are bulky. And crucially, they stayed that way by lack of competition.
As of a year ago, Fuji opened up their system to third party lenses. And it has been wonderful! Now we have affordable primes made by Sigma and Viltrox and Samyang, compact zooms by Tamron and Sigma, and even a few exotics that Fuji would never have made. Add to that years and years of seriously cheap Chinese manual primes.
Canon won’t have any of that. Not even the unlicensed Chinese manual primes, since they’re actively taking legal actions. It was a shame for Fuji, and it is a shame for Canon. It will hamper innovation and hold back the mount. It’s a serious drawback.
Both are terrific cameras. I have a friend who is an outstanding bird photographer uses the 5D4, but with nearly $20K in lens and tripod that would be a but out of my league. And if you go by Bill Claff’s Photons-to-Photos website, the 90D has noise/DR range that lines up almost exactly with the R7. So the obituary on the DSLR as dead is a bit premature.
@bastibe, I know exactly what you mean. A few years ago I started getting into wildlife photography and there’s no way I could have done that without the benefit of less expensive third party alternatives to pricey Canon L glass. And frankly, I’m not at all convinced they deliver the IQ to justify the premium.
I sort of view the ML camera marketing as somewhat analogous to the transition to the compact disk, where a new technology opened up a new market to resell entire libraries of music. And then again with MP3s (of course we now rent music). So I imagine Canon doesn’t wants that market share all to itself. Fortunately, the EF mount adapter works pretty well with the older lenses, including the third party glass, which is becoming attractively priced in the used market.
This is the claim.
I shoot 70D / 18-135 STM and 50 mm 1.4
When the focus happen to work well on 50 mm / 1.4 - it is very good. The challenge is - it is very unstable - even with central point AF.
Both lenses had to have micro adjustment and it is not as easy as expected.
The work that I like best has been on a close distance 50mm / 1.4 good lighting.
The 18-135 highly depends on the amount of light and is generally softer.
I got me a little bit more darkness and made a similar test for the Sony A7 iv (with the Sigma 28-70 / F2.8), the Canon EOS 80D and 50D (both with Sigma 17-50 / F2.8).
