To buy or to sell?

[Out to Lunch]

When reading the recent 'justified GAS' post, I've been wondering whether to buy a brand-spanking new Canon 5D Mark IV. I like the look of the pics I took with the 5DMII.

Where I'm at, the body goes for the equivalent of US$ 1,900. I have excellent Canon glass and instead of selling the lenses at a loss, why not buy a discounted Canon body? Or should I be aiming at the cheaper 6DMII, or just sell the glass, instead?

Many thanks for your comments.

Cheers, OtL

 

[B-9]

Just send the glass my way 😉

 

[Ccoppola82]

Interesting question. I started my photo journey with canon. I started with a 6d and have built a nice stable of lenses for it along with a 1v for film. All 2nd hand in good condition for very reasonable prices through the last 7 years. I mainly shoot leica now, but I keep the canon because there ARE times that I really enjoy it and it’s the better tool for the job vs the leica. Also, my fiancé does birding and uses canon. I’ve often thought of selling my kit, but I know I would regret it. Instead, I found a smoking deal on a Eos R that I use at work and for some planned video work I have going on. It’s definitely something to consider. I have an M adaptor for it as well to make it a bit more versatile than a 6dII would have been. Honestly it takes beautiful images and the L glass is more than adequate. My main reason for shooting the leica is size. I like small, interchangeable lens cameras.

So, my advice...keep the canon. If you need an upgraded body and shoot other systems as well, look for an EOS R. I Have zero regrets on getting mine for the purposes it was intended.

 

[AbtractBrewer]

I have always found the better investment to be in glass. Great glass on a modest body is wonderful. Modest glass on a great body is not as nice IMO.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Yeah, I'm a glass guy. Especially with digital. Give me great glass on a mediocre digital body any day, cause I can always upgrade the body(which will be obsolete in a few years anyway), but glass is for life.

The only regrets I ever have in selling camera equipment has always been about parting with a particular lens that I wish I still had.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Out to Lunch]

Many thanks for your comments. Ccoppola82 introduced the EOS R. Any comments on that? I had a look and the mount adapter goes for US$ 200. No problem. Anyone using this camera with L glass? Cheers, OtL

 

[Steve Ruddy]

If you have some of Canon’s better lenses I would stick with Canon especially since you like the images it gives you. I have Canon’s D and 5D cameras as well as a 1v. IMO 5D Mark IV is a very good and practical camera. I upgrade every few years when useful features come along. I use the WiFi and camera connect app that the previous version did not have. I love some of my Canon lenses and would have a hard time with the loss if trying to replace them. I’m even an odd one who likes to use modern lenses for film and love using them on my EOS 1V. I personally have no qualms about size and For now I like looking through the lens not at an electronically rendered viewfinder. I am keeping my eye on the mirrorless cameras never the less.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

OEM cheapest EF to RF adapter is 99 USD.
Third party are even less expensive, but I don't know if they work.
I have read about non Canon EF mount lenses not having AF on R bodies.

I have three L zooms and second by now 5D MKII.
70-200 f4 is not in use for years now.
16-35 f2.8 II and 24-105 F4 are in use. But this kit stays at home. About five or so years it became too bulky for me to take outside. I took 5D MKII with 16-35 to Toronto in 2019 once and it was very awkward to me. I'm not comfortable with huge, bouncing kit on my chest anymore. Pointing it at people was not something I still enjoy.

I don't like 5D MKII. It is my second one and they have same AF issues. With L lenses.

I have handled 5DMKIII or IV, can't recall which one was exactly, camera was less bulky in feel and they reworked the camera grip. Seems to be better grip.

I have handled R and it just as big as 5D series. I think, I'll go with RP, since it is lighter and less expensive.

The only problem is Canon RF lenses. They are all huge. Even 35 1.8 is not small lens.
And no plans for smaller lenses.
But their 24-105 F4 IS L RF is not bigger than EF version. And I have compact older EF USM zoom lens as well.

 

[arseniii]

When reading the recent 'justified GAS' post, I've been wondering whether to buy a brand-spanking new Canon 5D Mark IV. I like the look of the pics I took with the 5DMII.

5D Mark IV will have a different look than 5D Mark II. Although I am very happy with Canon's color science, their sensors are technologically outdated. The dynamic range and low light performance is not on par with Nikon's competitors.

Where I'm at, the body goes for the equivalent of US$ 1,900. I have excellent Canon glass and instead of selling the lenses at a loss, why not buy a discounted Canon body? Or should I be aiming at the cheaper 6DMII, or just sell the glass, instead?

5D Mk IV is bigger and heavier than both 6D and 5D MkII. <<< Just another factor you might want to consider.

Some Canon glass is splendid and it'd be arguably a good idea to sell it. One other possibility is to keep the lenses and adapt them to whatever other system you already have.

 

[dtcls100]

I would get the MKIV. The price is good, you have the lenses and you like the image quality. Only reason to sell would be to go mirrorless. I personally think the fad of saying dslrs are dead is BS. I presently own a Nikon d850 and a Sony A7Riii, each with some excellent lenses. While I appreciate the smaller size and weight of my Sony kit (especially since I have kept to some lighter lenses — Sony 12-24, Sony 24-105, and Batis 135), I still prefer using the Nikon d850 (Tamron 15-30, Tamron 24-70 g2, Nikon 105 dc, Nikon 70-200 vrii), because the ergonomics and operation are much smoother and intuitive. I really dislike the slippery vinyl grip covering of the Sony cameras (versus secure and comfy Nikon rubberized covering) and wonder what the hell Sony was thinking. While Sony eye-af and ibis are useful features, the almost all of the lenses used with my Nikon are stabilized and the Nikon af tracking is excellent. Sony is definitely better with mf lenses because of magnification focusing feature, as well as far superior video af.

So, if you don’t intend to go mirrorless, go for the 5D mkiv.

 

[giganova]

I have always found the better investment to be in glass.

Well, that landscape has dramatically changed with the new Z and RF mount lenses and the L Alliance. If you are serious about getting into a mirrorless system, better get the matching glass to take full advantage of their autofocus and lens correction capabilities. I mean, using an M lens on an SL2 or F-mount lenses on a Z camera seems kinda silly to me. As an example, I always thought that F-mount lenses are great and I had a collection of what I thought are "legacy lenses" that I would never sell... until the day where I tried them on high Mpix digital cameras and I realized how mediocre they really are.

There are always exceptions to the rue, of course, but I think it makes more sense to stay within the system, even if that means that at some point you might have to ditch your lens collection and buy into a new system.

 

[giganova]

I've been wondering whether to buy a brand-spanking new Canon 5D Mark IV.

OtL, have you checked out mirrorless cameras? The Fuji X, Canon EOS, and Nikon Z are really something else. I would never go back to a DSLR. If you want full-frame, why don't you get a Canon R5 when it comes out next week? It will be the new benchmark for mirrorless cameras. But don't discard APS, the Fuji X-T4 is amazing.

 

[dtcls100]

I would get the MKIV. The price is good, you have the lenses and you like the image quality. Only reason to sell would be to go mirrorless. I personally think the fad of saying dslrs are dead is BS. I presently own a Nikon d850 and a Sony A7Riii, each with some excellent lenses. While I appreciate the smaller size and weight of my Sony kit (especially since I have kept to some lighter lenses — Sony 12-24, Sony 24-105, and Batis 135), I still prefer using the Nikon d850 (Tamron 15-30, Tamron 24-70 g2, Nikon 105 dc, Nikon 70-200 vrii), because the ergonomics and operation are much smoother and intuitive. I really dislike the slippery vinyl grip covering of the Sony cameras (versus secure and comfy Nikon rubberized covering) and wonder what the hell Sony was thinking. While Sony eye-af and ibis are useful features, almost all of the lenses used with my Nikon are stabilized and the Nikon af tracking is excellent. Sony is definitely better with mf lenses because of magnification focusing feature, as well as far superior video af.

So, if you don’t intend to go mirrorless, go for the 5D mkiv.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm a fan of mirrorless over DSLRs... BUT, if I had a lot of DSLR lenses, and I liked the output from a certain DSLR, I would choose the DSLR. I would much rather use a DSLR and DSLR lenses than a mirrorless, adapter and DSLR lenses. Under $2000 for that body sounds like a pretty good deal. What do you usually use?

 

[Ccoppola82]

Many thanks for your comments. Ccoppola82 introduced the EOS R. Any comments on that? I had a look and the mount adapter goes for US$ 200. No problem. Anyone using this camera with L glass? Cheers, OtL

I bought an m mount adapter for like $20 and it works very well. PM me if you want some samples.

 

[AbtractBrewer]

Well, that landscape has dramatically changed with the new Z and RF mount lenses and the L Alliance. If you are serious about getting into a mirrorless system, better get the matching glass to take full advantage of their autofocus and lens correction capabilities. I mean, using an M lens on an SL2 or F-mount lenses on a Z camera seems kinda silly to me. As an example, I always thought that F-mount lenses are great and I had a collection of what I thought are "legacy lenses" that I would never sell... until the day where I tried them on high Mpix digital cameras and I realized how mediocre they really are.

There are always exceptions to the rue, of course, but I think it makes more sense to stay within the system, even if that means that at some point you might have to ditch your lens collection and buy into a new system.

I guess we have a fundamentaly different stance on this. I used Leica glass exclusively on my fuji system. I gave most of fuji lenses a shot but none of it compared to my leica lenses. For me the big advantage of mirrorless was the ease of use with special lenses. I will never find better glass than my leica and Zeiss lenses regardless of the system. I havemt found anything close to my 135 apo f2 Zeiss, or my 100mm "makro" f2. These lenses will be adapted, along with a few others, to whatever system I am using at the time. I am a manual everything lover and the body plays very little role in my photographic life. We all have different objectives, there is no right or wrong opinion. I just strive for the best glass possible.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Again, many thanks for your generous feedback. I'm learning something here. To clarify, when I look at my 'old' Canon pics with L glass I am pleasantly surprised by their rendering. Softer and perhaps with a bit more character than the pics with my latest and greatest Fuji cameras and glass. For reference’ sake, I also quite like the look of my antique Epson rangefinders with CV and Zeiss lenses. I am open to any further advice. Many thanks! OtL

 

[Out to Lunch]

To follow-up: I contacted some local online sellers and found that their cameras are gray imports. I can't order internationally since the import duty on cameras is very high. Then I went back into the archives and found the following pics I took with the 5DII in 2010 -with the L 1.2/85. If the 5DII survived a few years in storage, I'll stick with it, or upgrade to a mirrorless Canon later, whenever I will be able to travel again:










Again, many thanks for your best advice! Cheers, OtL

 

[Archiver]

Funny, I've been asking myself similar questions over the last few months. I still like my 5D Mark II, despite the wonky AF and shadow noise. When you get it right, the images are great. Although I'm not sure if I'd characterize L glass images as being more like older RF glass.


From what I've read so far, the 5D Mark IV has better image quality and overall operation than the 6D Mark II, and the 6D II's base ISO dynamic range seems to be less than its predecessor! The EOS R is essentially a 5D IV in mirrorless form, for less money, and can adapt L glass almost seamlessly. Although, I've read that the EOS R colour isn't quite the same 'Canon colour' for which the older models are famous. The R6 seems to be a return to that, although it's gonna be expensive.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Someone further up this thread mentioned keeping the glass and getting a used digital body.

I'd like to add, keep the glass and get a Canon refurbished digital body. I did that back in 2016 with a Canon 6D that Canon refurbished. Cost considerably less than "brand spanking new" and I've beat the daylights out of that body on jobs for the last four years and it's still going strong. Will probably replace it with a Canon 6DII refurbished in the next year or two.

Also, I see you have the 85mm f1.2L lens, the dream lens. Keep that, always. One of the lenses I regret selling.

Best,
-Tim