Upgrade to mirrorless or full frame?

[GVLCN]

Hi all,

I’m looking for some advice, I’ve recently sold my 90d. Can anyone please tell me of a good upgrade from this? I was thinking mirrorless however I’ve ready good & bad sides to having one!

In that case could someone please give me some advice? If I can’t upgrade to mirrorless then I will get the canon 5d mk iv

Any advice would be great,

Many thanks Andy

[Nighthawke]

For starters just curious why you got rid of the 90D - never had one but have heard good things and seen good results online? Glass upgrades often give bigger benefits than body changes.

That aside however, I went from crop 700D to FF 6D (mk1) and was very pleased with the change. I then went to Mirrorless (Canon R) after my wife got one and whilst it gives good results with both RF and existing EF lenses (with adapter) it has taken quite a while to get used to. I cannot justify another expensive change so am persevering. The later R range models seem to be better adapted to "action" photography with a higher keeper-rate. Other brands are of course available if you are considering a wholesale change.

I am sure you will get plenty of advice and probably conflicting too. As always with photography it is a good idea to go to a store and get hands-on experience.

[GVLCN]

I originally had a 6d mk ii which the 90d never compared too, especially when editing. I’ve never really rated the camera hence the sale. I have used the 100-400mm mk 2 & 28-300mm L series lenses & can’t say that I was ever 100% happy with the result.

I look back at photos I’ve taken with a 7d mk ii & a 100-400mm mk ii & they've been better. Same I think could be said for my 6d mk ii

[Nighthawke]

Thanks for that - not questioning your decision, just curious. I have the 100-400 Mk.II on the R. I also have access use my wife's RF100-500 and personally they are on a par IMHO. RFs are lighter but expensive. Hope you get more help and enjoy whatever you end up with.

[B58Hustler]

Never used a mirrorless camera and I will be late to the party, and this being an aircraft forum I'm assuming you want to do flying as well as static.
Mirrorless is undoubtedly the future but the technology is increasing at a huge rate whereas you can buy a DSLR that will never be bettered.
For me, the deciding factor would be EVF delay on something fast moving. At some point in the near future it will be instant, but don't think it is yet.
Willing to be corrected if wrong though.
Regards, Jay.

[xkekeith]

My main body was a 7Dii with a 5dii as a backup body with EF 24-105 f4 and a EF 100-400mm mk2. Upgraded the 5Dii for a mirrorless RP as the new backup. However the RP has been so good it has become my main body by default and I’ve added a RF600mm. The mirrorless take a little bit of getting used too but the lack of noise at higher ISO is excellent and it’s very sharp even with the EF lenses. Now looking to upgrade the 7Dii to a R7. If I sell a kidney will look to get the RF 100-500mm

[GVLCN]

Thanks all this info has been very helpful, at moment sale of my 90d has fallen through so I guess I’ll be sticking with this year. However the comments have really been helpful thank you.

[Nighthawke]

If I sell a kidney will look to get the RF 100-500mm

As I mentioned above, I use both and I am as happy with a 400mm EF image cropped as a "native" 500 from the RF. Even with an EF 1.4 MkIII added providing the light is good. Personally I'd keep that kidney

[slogen51]

I don't think moving from crop sensor to full frame DSLR is an upgrade? Discuss

A full frame DSLR offers different opportunities and clearly has a place but in the aviation photography game I think a aps-c crop sensor is the tool of choice.

Full frame tends to be more expensive, heavier and you will be cropping anyway unless you use a longer more expensive lens. For example a 300mm on my crop sensor D7200 is like a 500mm (actually 450mm) on a full frame camera

[B58Hustler]

Agreed. For landscapes It's D810 at 64 iso all day long. Other than that it depends if you can fill the frame but this has been debated ad nauseum.
I have always had a FF body and a crop. First a D600 and D7200 and currently a D810 and D500 and if you randomly picked any of my aviation or motorsport images, unless I could recall what I was using at the time, there's no way I would know what camera was used.
As for mirrorless, some of the recent images I've seen are definitely a step up in image quality.
Thing is, how much of that is due to the sensor, how much is due to the optics, and how much is down to the new breed of editing software?

[GVLCN]

Thanks for all comments 90d sold along with lenses, now looking at canon R7 & just deciding on a lens. 100-400mm RF sounds almost as good as the 100-500mm L has anyone any experience with 100-400mm RF?

Will probably purchase soon.

Thanks for all responses they’ve been very helpful

[Nighthawke]

Not used the RF 100-400 but it depends whether you consider the 4x price-tag worth the extra 100mm. Personally I would have kept the EF 100-400 as it is generally considered better than the RF100-400 (L-glass vs non-L) and on a par with the RF100-500 L (as I advised earlier). It is also weather-sealed which the RF100-400 is not. Probably the one main advantage of the RF over the EF lenses is that they are lighter.

I presume you have researched reviews and comparisons on-line (or in-shop)? It can be overload sometimes but usuallly helps in the final decision-making.

[slogen51]

I think the R7 if you are a canon user is probably a good choice - it is a crop sensor.

I don't have a mirrorless system but I have been at the fence with people who do and I know framing and continuous shooting whilst panning with a moving aircraft is a major subject of discussion - it appears to take quite a bit of practice. Many advocate buying the R6 Mk11 with it's 40 frames per second effectively video!

As I say I don't own a mirrorless but it might be worth borrowing an R7 if you can

No doubt this has already been discussed elsewhere

In terms of image quality mirrorless cameras appear to be superior but probably mainly due to being new technology - higher pixel count and therefore a higher pixel density which can give amazing results if you crop right into the picture - definitely useful for number crunchers like me where you really need to read off Aircraft at quite long distances. However I think generally most people want to view the whole aircraft nose to tail in decent lighting with good exposure and a hard to define 'crispy' feel and I reckon that is down to the photographer in his/her choice of lens , settings and position and general handling of the camera.

[slogen51]

PS just looked at your 90D specs - it looks like a very good camera

33 Megapixels on a crop sensor - very similar to the R7 mirrorless

Weather protection

[pb643]

I upgraded my 7D for an R7 last year. I already had a 100-400L II. I also picked up an R100-400 as it was offered at a good price.

As mentioned by others, the build quality/weather seal is different, I wouldn't want to have the R series running with rain, the movable screen feels particularly vulnerable or the R series lens. But they are both so much lighter than the EF equivalents.

Watch the numerous youtube videos regarding the shutter on mirrorless cameras. You have three shutter options, the faster being the electronic shutter, but it has its disadvantages, namely rolling shutter distortion, the sensor cannot capture the image quickly enough from the top to the bottom, so you can have weird 'dragged' distortion, where straight lines are not straight. As with all things, you can avoid this by spending more money. Loads of stuff online that explains it far better than I can. The recommended advice seems to be either accept that you will take so many images that you will be happy with some or use 2nd curtain shutter that is slower but resolves the distortion problem.

The AF on the R7 is amazing, streets ahead of the 7D, when everything is working correctly it is just staggering. So many focus points, so quick to focus. The downside is it is so flipping complex, I think there are 3 or more pages of settings just for the AF. Add a teleconverter to the 100-400L series lens and it just carries on focusing as though it isn't there!! (Obviously requires the EF adapter) you even get limited AF with extension tubes.

Overall I can see no difference between the R series lens and the 100-400L, I believe this was the consensus when I looked last year.

One other thing that I will mention: if you take a burst of images, you can then protect the ones you want and delete the remainder in one go, rather than having to delete the images individually.

Also no more CF cards, just SD cards.

Overall I think the R7 is a fabulous bit of kit, the only thing holding me back is the complexity of the setup. However, I think it is me to blame rather than the camera. Again on Youtube there are loads of videos on setup, not specifically aviation, I have followed the bird photography ones and learnt a lot, I just need to put it into practice and get loads more practice!

I will try my best to answer any questions.

Phil

[Pat Murphy]

Went down the same route out of a 90D just over 12 months ago, of which I had 2 dodgy copies....Inconsistent AF and off centre AF with the first. Enough was enough. Took the plunge as a retirement treat. R6 Mkii, and a 100-500L. A total game changer! Yes it's a jump in tech, yes it loses "reach" but I've since bought a 1.4TC and that's cured any reach issues and it still says super sharp. Bird photography is my other main subject and I'm off to Alaska in May. The thought of a worst case of an accident to my gear on day one, has led me to a back up. I was looking at a 2nd hand R5 as a second body, but 3 years of tech means the R6ii appears to have better low light capability and so another R6ii is about to be ordered. I can't hold back for an R5ii and what's more, I'm so happy with my current gear, it would have to be a complete game changer for it to be worth waiting for. The R7 was on my list to compare but at the time stock was an issue and too many reported the same inconsistent AF issues, it has a similar sensor as the 90D, Duade Paton on Youtube, has an ongoing issue with this and that means it's a no for me. Hope this helps.
Pat

[eagle driver]

Just a quick thankyou to all who have posted in this thread a conundrum that I have been debating of late 6Dmk2 90D or going R -

Thanks for your input but still to decide current camera s are a 77D and a 50D as a back up both have been superb but now the 50D is getting a little long in the tooth

[XWP29]

Having tried most formats the 1DX is great for all styles of action photography. The 1DX MK III is a mirrorless camera in live view, it’s probably the best full frame camera ever made, yet still pricy. Have to say I never got on with the 7D MK2 in anything other that perfect light, so moved it on quickly. Full Frame for me then.
Looked at mirrorless but decided to stay DSLR. The 5D4 is a great camera but it’s slow frame rate isn’t ideal for action photography.

[reheat module]

I use both the 5Div and the 90D. Both are excellent cameras; I do however, have separate uses for both, i.e. 5D is studio, landscape, macro etc and the 90D for sports. The EF lens group is superb, including the L series. I have said before, I see the future in mirrorless, but the incessant drive for smallness, compactness and light in the hand does not suit my ergonomic needs due to my hand size (spades) and fingers (yoghurt pots).

[GVLCN]

Thank you for all the comments they’ve been very helpful & I am glad to hear I’m not the only one who didn’t rate the 90d. I was never 100% happy with it from new.