Mirrorless as it should be: We heard how mirrorless was to be smaller and lighter. The bodies were somewhat lighter and smaller but the same lens as a DSLR lens was the same size and...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

We heard how mirrorless was to be smaller and lighter.
The bodies were somewhat lighter and smaller but the same lens as a DSLR lens was the same size and weight or frequently greater.
It appears that Canon figured out how to exploit the mirrorless camera as many had hoped it would be over all substantially smaller and lighter.
The new pro model RF 70-200mm f2.8 is finally showing what can be done with a mirrorless lens designed for heavy pro use yet be a lot lighter and more compact yet better performance than the DSLR versions.
Hopefully other RF lenses will follow suite.
Here is a comparison:
Sony 70-200mm f2.8; 52.21 oz and 200mm long and 88mm diameter.
Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8; 37.76 oz and 146mm long and 89.9mm diameter.

Add this to an R camera and you finally have a truly light pro mirrorless setup.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Stan Lee said the greatest superpower he gave his characters was luck. Would you rather be lucky or have a mirrorless camera?

bleirer

Even the Canon EF70-200 Is 50 ounces, so nice weight savings. Image quality looks similar though at a savings of $1000 for the EF.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1197&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1417&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

BebuLamar

CHG_CANON wrote:

Stan Lee said the greatest superpower he gave his characters was luck. Would you rather be lucky or have a mirrorless camera?

Lucky for sure!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

bleirer wrote:

Even the Canon EF70-200 Is 50 ounces, so nice weight savings. Image quality looks similar though at a savings of $1000 for the EF.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1197&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1417&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

If I had an R camera no way would I get the EF version. Wait a bit and price will come down. This seems to be a pattern of all the camera/lens makers. They sell it at first for the person that has to be the first on the block with a new camera or lens and then when the frenzy dies down the price is adjusted for the rest of us.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"We heard how mirrorless was to be smaller and lighter."

Yes, but you left out that the smaller, lighter part was leveraged by Olympus, Panasonic and others.

Bigger mirrorless cameras have larger sensors and the advantages that come with those. But they are bigger and heavier.

The point of mirrorless designs I think it the other advantages. For example, they can be silent! What are the other real advantages of mirrorless?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

bsprague wrote:

"We heard how mirrorless was to be smaller and lighter."

Yes, but you left out that the smaller, lighter part was leveraged by Olympus, Panasonic and others.

Bigger mirrorless cameras have larger sensors and the advantages that come with those. But they are bigger and heavier.

The point of mirrorless designs I think it the other advantages. For example, they can be silent! What are the other real advantages of mirrorless?

Olympus and Panasonic size is not mirrorless related as much a a substantially smaller sensor, thus a much smaller format. Totally different path and construction.
This, what Canon is doing, is taking the standard 35mm format sensor and building a lighter and smaller SYSTEM around that format.

bleirer

Architect1776 wrote:

If I had an R camera no way would I get the EF version. Wait a bit and price will come down. This seems to be a pattern of all the camera/lens makers. They sell it at first for the person that has to be the first on the block with a new camera or lens and then when the frenzy dies down the price is adjusted for the rest of us.

Peeping at the rest images I don't see a difference. Why do you say never EF?

That said I am waiting a year hoping for an equivalent rf to the 100-400 or just an affordable 300 or 400 rf prime. Canon RP.

The EF 180 macro also gets my attention for image quality in that range , only 37 ounces.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=109&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1417&CameraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=4

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

bleirer wrote:

Peeping at the rest images I don't see a difference. Why do you say never EF?

That said I am waiting a year hoping for an equivalent rf to the 100-400 or just an affordable 300 or 400 rf prime. Canon RP.

I have EF lenses, great lenses.
If I go RF mount then I would like to have lenses that take advantage of the new features that mirrorless offers.
I would adapt my EF lenses like the superb 100-400 MII. But who knows what the RF one will be like?
I will keep my EF lenses as I have film EOS cameras that will not use the RF lenses as we know due to the flange distance.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Some of the new RF lenses are very interesting. I have too much invested in EF glass to start over, and like you, I use them on an EOS-1N for film, but if I was starting fresh...

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Architect1776 wrote:

We heard how mirrorless was to be smaller and ligh... (show quote)

Except for one thing, and that is that Canon has not yet come out with a pro oriented mirrorless!

bleirer

TriX wrote:

Some of the new RF lenses are very interesting. I have too much invested in EF glass to start over, and like you, I use them on an EOS-1N for film, but if I was starting fresh...

I have the EF-RF adapter, came free with the RP, works flawlessly and very little size or weight to worry about.

There are 3rd party adaptors for Canon FD to RF and many others, know nothing of their quality.

https://www.canonnews.com/kipon-releases-20-adapters-for-the-eos-rf-mount

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

speters wrote:

Except for one thing, and that is that Canon has not yet come out with a pro oriented mirrorless!

So?
The EOS did not start out with the camera but the lenses so when the camera came out, 1D, the stable of lenses were there and from that point on Canon totally dominated the pro world to this day.
So put out a pro camera with no lenses, that is pretty silly.

Salo Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

I have both Nikon and Olympus camera systems. It's probably because I'm older but the small and light in weight mirrorless Oly's are what I always reach for these days. Yeah, I know, the MFT sensor is smaller by about half, but the images that it can produce are still outstanding under most conditions. If I were a professional making my living through photography, I would likely want to carry with me the most outstanding equipment I could find regardless of size and weight, but I'm only a multi-decade serious photo enthusiast who fell in love with MFT at about age 70. Chances are you will too when you get to my age (depending on what newer technology has to offer).

mrpentaxk5ii

Some DSLR'S such as the Pentax KP have an electronic shutter that is whisper quiet but I would say seeing exact exposure in the view finder is a big plus.