Agree. When I started as a hobbyist in 2005, I had entry level Rebel XT and 70-200 f/4L. That was what I started my biz with 4 years later. Ever since, I have always advised friends that, if you can’t buy both pro lens and pro body, always spend your $ on the lens.
and also it's easier to find a budget lens that performs really good than an equally budget body that also performs good, so especially for video there are cases where you're gonna want to get the better body instead I had a GF1 and upgraded to a G85, a mile worth of difference for video, and the ISO noise performance for both stills and video is insanely improved compared to the GF1, so much better dynamic range for stills, IBIS and dual IS compared to no stabilization, etc. but yeah, if your lens is just not that good, it's gonna tank the performance of any good camera body, i say get a really good budget lens and then an older but mid-tier body and you can get really good performance that way
Usually the lens makes the difference, except in some circumstances like with wildlife and sports, the body may also play a role. But even so, the PHOTOGRAPHER is the most important thing. A skilled photographer with a kit lens and mid-range camera can probably create a better compostion than a newbie with a pro camera and pro lens. But if given the choice, always get the best glass you can afford and skimp on the body if you have to because it's what will impact image quality the most probably in terms of sharpness. Now many kit lenses these days are quite sharp and sharp enough for the average person, but the general advice is to buy better lenses, and skimp on the body if you have to.
Using rfs lens on a fullframe will result to loss of resolution on the r5. You are left with around 17.5mp. In my opinion the better lens to use is the rf 50mm f1.8 and the rf 50mm f1.2. To really get a good result. Well. Maybe it's just me.
I completely disagree. The whole idea of this test was the show the difference between a crappy kit lens and great camera vs a good prime and a lesser camera
Loosely quoting this comparison I heard once "A lens is like human's eyes and a camera is like a brain. You cannot expect your brain to register and process a high quality image if you have bad eyesight". I started not so long ago with Canon RP + RF 24-105 mm f4. I am still a beginner but this little setup delivers great results and bring me a lot of joy :)
You dont get more bokeh on aps-c bodies, it is quite the opposite. Dude to the physics, to achieve the same framing you have to stand further away from a subject, thus DOF is less. Crop sensor as name suggests simply crops the lens output, it does not zoom in physically
I was always taught that you buy the best lens you can afford and then think about what that leaves you with for the body when beginning. I have always taken this to heart, and your video demonstrates this perfectly. Thank you for the demonstration.
Well to be honest...you should have used two zoom lenses or two primes, because primes always are sharper than zoom lenses, even with nowadays improved technologies. But overall...Nice comparison. Greetz from Belgium.😊
Amazing! You have proven a point bro that many beginners get wrong. It is better to invest on lenses rather than changing hoping from camera to camera.
I’m a bit more old school , 1dx + 70-210 f/4 IS USM , works a treat 😉 Love the video though , great example of what’s really important, “it’s all about the glass” (Please note , favourite lens at moment, is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art) 😊
Both lens are push pin for me. I'm currently looking for ef 70-200 but the IS version. Mostly for portraits and street photo. Also a wish for a good kind of 50mm. Probably EF verson on canon rp.
Funny thing… I own that 85mm f/2 “pro” lens and recently bought the RF 100mm f/2.8 L macro in hopes of being able to sell the 85mm. I’ve yet to be able to compare them on the R6 Mark II but I’m going to throw in the RF 24-105 f/4 L to the mix when I do compare them. I really feel I won’t need to keep the 85mm when that’s all said and done. I can recoup about $300 by selling the 85mm to MPB or KEH and I really think that’ll be a good idea. I’d like to get the 14-35mm f/4 or 70-200mm f/4 instead, I just don’t know which would be smarter. Especially since I own the budget RF 100-400mm lens. I’m leaning toward the 14-35mm. I just really want the 70-200!
That budget body is like a pro one in my eyes If you would've used something like the canon eos 2000d/Rebel T7. Would it still have performed as well up against the Pro body with the kit lens?
7:37, the cropped sensor gives you greater depth of field, which means more in focus at any aperture, compared to a full frame equivalent. It's harder to get the background blur with APS-C. I totally agree about the cheap body quality glass. He images are immediately noticeable as sharper. What a difference you know. Shooting experience aside, for a controlled shoot like this portrait session, you'd get better results saving all that money and buying better lenses versus getting that nicer body. Any image will only be as good as the glass that allows the light through to be. now the nice glass on the higher end camera versus the entry camera and cheap lens, yikes, that's a world of difference. Would be great to see the cheap camera quality glass verse the quality camera and quality glass. Are the images themselves really £5000 better? This is leaving the shooting experience and other features out, just image quality. My bet is that image quality isn't allmtjat much better in regular and controlled shoots. Extremes like ISO and autofocus for moving subjects, it's obvious a better system will make getting keepers less of a challenge. Not everyone needs those features or shoots that subject matter.
^This. The crop factor does not change the actual focal length which many seem to forget, so there is no change in depth of field using the same lens on FF and APS-C if the distance remains the same. However to get the same framing one would stand further back with APS-C which results in an increase of DOF.
@Mikri90 Sure, I mean it's a more complicated way to look at it, from focal length perspective, no, but from the aperture perspective maybe. I mean you aren't wrong but I haven't thought of it this way. This is kind of odd though. Think about this... Let's start at 35mm lens on a Full Frame (35mm camera). Let's say it's F2. If you get a wider angle it's harder to get a shallower DOF. If you get a telephoto you'll have a harder time with a lot of DOF. So taking that 35mm lens to Medium Format will give you a wider field of view but shallower DOF, opposite form what it's supposed to be. Now, if you go to a crop sensor you'll get a more zoomed in version of the lens focal length but also more DOF. Kinda funny how that works. Staying in the same format though and the expected happens: going wider gives you a greater DOF and going longer gives you shallower DOF. It just behaves differently when taking the same focal length to those differing formats.
I recently bought a R100, what is the best lens you would suggest for me to get it. I usually capture Landscape, street, but I want to get into the career so I am thinking to give product photography a chance. Appreciate your advise on the both the queries.
Can you do a video Rf 85mm f/2 VS Rf 85mm f/1.2, and Rf 35mm f1.8 VS Rf 35mm 1.4? Because they are many photography want to see, many thanks for your help, hopefully can see they're soon.
Neat video. I'm a hobbyist recently getting back into photography. I agree that the shots from the prime look better. The kit lens here has some pretty big limitations with its apertures, but even so I like the headshot with the trees repeating into the background. Skill is the most important factor, I think! I do wonder how far this goes. I don't know Canon's products, but it looks like they have an 85mm f/1.2 lens that sells for $2,600 or so. Is that noticeably better than the 85mm f/2? Or would the difference depend on 'pixel peeping."?
What white balance is used here please? The temperature seems to be around 5300 I guess? Also, if you can please try RF lense on R5 next time? 😅 A kit lens Like 24-105 or 24-50 maybe?
Back in 2020 when I swapped from a nikon 3000 series to a sony a7rIV I was considering buying an a7III instead. I started comparing the benefits I would get from the d3300 to the a7III and realized that even the basic kit 50mm that came with them were better across the board than the nikon lenses I had at the time. In that specific case I chose a higher quality body over getting high quality glass. Granted it is a niche case, but just a reminder that if you are going from an older pro camera to a newer one the glass will be the biggest point. But if you are changing to a new platform from an old system sometimes everything is just overall better.
Hi, I'm just wondering did you do any color grading for your pictures? Is it normal for photographers to do color grading? My photos look wrose without them😂
Agree the difference is in the glass. More interesting the comparison between Highend glasses Brand vs. 3rd party in the same tier (e.g. Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji vs. SIgma vs. Samyang et al.) Even so the comparison between a new High density sensor vs. an older lower density sensor in the same Size (so reducing at least one variable)
The feeling of the picture is completly different (85mm looks much better) but.... If you would use 50mm 1.8 on R5 vs 50mm F1.2 on R100 (or better cheapest full frame), then the test would be valid. 85mm and 18-45mm it is fare off. My advice, take the cheapest full frame with the best 50mm and the best body with the cheapest 50mm.
If you take the best from each camera and make a 20x24 inch print, and only looking at the quality and ignoring the difference in depth of field, could you say one lens is better than the other? That is the real question. Images converted to dots per inch is the final test.
Looking at those comparisons the Bokeh was significantly better but there is a special charm to those Budget lens on pro camera shots If you've got the taste for it. I just did a Professional Event Shoot using two very old Canon Kit Lenses adapted onto an R8 and some of the results were absolutely phenomenal, never seen those lenses perform as incredibly as they did on that camera. As always Results depend on what you're looking for and what you can afford. Personally, I'd say get a body one step below "Pro level" if you hug the poverty line (as I do) but really need a good camera. All you'll lose out on is a couple extra features that aren't fully necessary, maybe battery life and an extra card slot. But the performance and versatility will be worth it. If you throw your money into a single good lens on a cheap camera, you'll have less versatility (overall). (Just my two cents if anyone is interested :D)
My question is if you go for the middle price range do you get the best of both worlds or the worst ❓Like I have a Sony 6400 and some mid priced lenses am I getting the best value or should I spend more on one or the other ❓🤠
Depends what your shoot? I find my A6400 view finder too small for fast moving subjects and so prefer my full frame body. Can I see the difference between my Tamron and Sony GM or G lenses-no I can’t for most things. But in low light which is my norm I need the lower f stop lenses to get the shot. I also like the faster frame rate, pre capture and focus stacking on my newer and more expensive bodies. But if I shot portraits or still life where mostly you can have a couple of gos at taking the shot then the f4 cheaper lenses are fine 😊
IMHO, best lens is a nifty 50mm prime, and the best camera is one that you have on you. Having said that. After 40 years of lugging around medium format and full frame, I now carry a Canon R7 with the Sigma RF 18-50mm F2.8 lens and Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8, because it is way smaller and lighter than my 5D mkII and 5D mkIII with 5 L lenses that I gave them to my niece last year.
I really want a mirrorless, but now I'm wondering if I should get a new lens instead. That comparison was amazing. My thing is that I'm on a dslr (250d) and OVF is annoying the hell out of me (modern day problems), but I could always just keep taking shots and improving anyways 🤷🏾♂️ Choices choices choices! Thanks for messing with my brain😅
I have just gone back to a dslr for my larger camera purely for the ergonomics! I still have my Fuji x-t30 mirrorless. I use the viewfinder almost exclusively as I need reading glasses so don’t often use the screen (however on can actually see it on the dslr). I’m still getting used to where stuff is from muscle memory but I keep forgetting that the view in the viewfinder isn’t the correct or almost correct exposure that it was on the mirrorless. Ended up with a few shockers 😂 on the plus side the joy of the battery life on a dslr is wonderful
Can't really be told that way, depends on what you need. Example: I started on a Canon M50, changed to an older Sony full frame (A7 II) and arriving at a 7R III. However, pairing this older, cheaper A7 II body with good lenses was absolutely fine, however the body limited my possibilities by his offerings in terms of video capabilities (very weak 1080 footage with lots of Moiré). So even putting a pro-grade super expensive 2000€ 50mm f1.2 G-Master lens would not have helped me out on this. You need a good basic compromise between both. A body that is able to deliver the base technology you need, paired with a lens that can make use of these technological capabilities. In theory, lenses have a stronger impact on your image, but if the body restricts you in that creative use of your lens, the lens itself won't help you out, too.
I personally would much rather have a professional lens. I’ve shot with a similar set up for years. Although I know some photographers who prefer a professional camera with the grittiness of a budget lens.
If you are aiming for professional photography, always invest in a better quality body. It is always more weather resistant and it always contains two memory cards instead of a single one in entry cameras, which will keep your files better, and this wristband will give you additional features that you won't get in entry cameras. Such as a stabilized and stacked sensor and faster and sharper autofocus. Expensive lenses can always be rented if you need them for a special project.
I like the cheap lens + R5 combo better, am I the only one? I prefer the deeper depth of field that includes more of the environment in the shot and creates additional depth in the frame. The most obvious example is the third picture, two sharp three trunks on both sides and bokeh for the rest of the background does not do anything for me, compared with the multiple layers of birch in the cheap lens picture. Just my 2 cents.
I Think a pro Body will give the photographer, more comfort in use, and very useful resources like IBIS and a reliable sensor in high Iso. But the lens is what pass the feeling of the image, the sharpness and that pro photo taste.
Well this is true in today's world. If you are doing something similar with DSLR's you would quickly notice that the body makes a difference specially in focusing and also ISO performance. I bet if you use a budget DSLR from back in the day with same lenses you would notice right away the images have a lot of noise as soon as you move the ISO a little higher. What works is if you know how to take good images, then the body really doesn't matter. For somebody who is not a seasoned pro I would say a better body is always better than pro glass. A better body with decent lenses will serve you way better in all situations than a cheap body with pro glass.
Actually, I experimented on this with my old rebel and 5Dii. Rebel is still rubbish even with nice lens. I am not pretty much sure with mirrorless ones, but this shows a good basis for me.
I'll take the pro body every day, for the user experience. I actually like cheaper lenses and tend to use them a lot more than the high end stuff, even when both are an option.
Definitely a pro lens is HUGELY more important. This year I've found that lens is more important then even the sensor size. Top Pro micro 4/3 lenses with modern mft camera perform AT LEAST as good as FF camera with mediocre lenses (like 24-105) or even better.
The cheap body with professional lens lens has better colour definition and balance a good quality lens makes a world of different when taking photos because the difference in camera bodies doesn't always mean lack of quality on cheaper body's they have smaller sensors lack the flashier tools that the more expensive bodies have but also part of the price difference comes from the fact that more expensive camera bodies have a better build quality for better durability as well as some sort of weather proofing all of which doesn't come cheap
Thanks for the video and the test. I feel that comparing the 24 - 105 kit lens @ 85mm mounted on the R5 with the @85 mm prime lens mounted on the R100 would have been a fairer comparison. Also it depends on the look you're going for. Creamy bokeh isn't for everyone. The test just goes to show how good the R100 really is and that for most of us buying a high end camera would be a waste of money
Glass glass glass it’s alway best to put your money into better glass unless a body is holding you back. I think many think they have to have the latest and greatest body when a few year old body may get the job done. I have several lenses that are 10 15 20 or more years old that I still use. I don’t use any 20 year old bodies though. Plus good glass will always benefit from a newer body when that time comes. Bad glass and its flaws will only be revealed more and more with newer bodies IMHO
Photos shot on a 50mm 1.2 L series lens on a cheap body are always going to be better than photos shot on an expensive body with a cheap nifty fifty 1.8... unless you need full frame, or fast fps for sports or wildlife... If you set your exposure to F2.8 - 1/400 - ISO 200 on a cheap body and expensive body, you're going to get pretty much the same result with the same lens... but if you put the cheap lens on the expensive body and vice versa.. from experience.. i get better results from the cheap body with the better lens
A more accurate test would have been: pro lens -amateur camera : Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L USM + Canon R100 vs amateur lens- pro camera: Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS + Canon R5
I think all the Emmyleigh type upper-middle-class folk with the R5 daddy got them with a full SUITE of pro lenses have proved time and time again that the photographer is the most important piece of equipment 😂. anyone can set all auto and use a purchased adobe preset for editing. Lighting and compositional knowledge is what youre paying for. I have better half-assed shots with a rebel t7 and kit lens than some """"""professionals"""""" have as their capstone work with over 25k in gear 😂
From other side - most modern photographers/sellers are pretty sure excellent , interesting photos didn't exist before 2023 and completely couldn't exist in '90, '80, '70, '60, '50, '40, '30 of the XX century. Your equipment doesn't matter - right time, right place and You will get satisfaction (someone even was singing about satisfaction :)) with cheapest old machine for 200$ and f/8
Agree. When I started as a hobbyist in 2005, I had entry level Rebel XT and 70-200 f/4L. That was what I started my biz with 4 years later. Ever since, I have always advised friends that, if you can’t buy both pro lens and pro body, always spend your $ on the lens.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Great advice lenses last longer
and also it's easier to find a budget lens that performs really good than an equally budget body that also performs good, so especially for video there are cases where you're gonna want to get the better body instead
I had a GF1 and upgraded to a G85, a mile worth of difference for video, and the ISO noise performance for both stills and video is insanely improved compared to the GF1, so much better dynamic range for stills, IBIS and dual IS compared to no stabilization, etc.
but yeah, if your lens is just not that good, it's gonna tank the performance of any good camera body, i say get a really good budget lens and then an older but mid-tier body and you can get really good performance that way
Yeah i always thought it was weird when i saw someone with a ~$700 body and a $3k lens, but the quality was just insane
Pro lens will be affordable when you search on the used market. The new lens are very expensive.
Usually the lens makes the difference, except in some circumstances like with wildlife and sports, the body may also play a role. But even so, the PHOTOGRAPHER is the most important thing. A skilled photographer with a kit lens and mid-range camera can probably create a better compostion than a newbie with a pro camera and pro lens. But if given the choice, always get the best glass you can afford and skimp on the body if you have to because it's what will impact image quality the most probably in terms of sharpness. Now many kit lenses these days are quite sharp and sharp enough for the average person, but the general advice is to buy better lenses, and skimp on the body if you have to.
100% agree, my best birding was with a Sony A200 and a kit 75-300 all manual focus.
I think this is most valid for controlled enviroments. Otherwise you sometimes end up of focus or with not enough dynamic range etc.
Using rfs lens on a fullframe will result to loss of resolution on the r5. You are left with around 17.5mp. In my opinion the better lens to use is the rf 50mm f1.8 and the rf 50mm f1.2. To really get a good result. Well. Maybe it's just me.
or even just the 24-50 full frame kit lens on the r5, and an rf 35mm 1.4 on the r100
@@paololarocca7684 yeah. That's another good suggestion.
Here you go th-cam.com/video/oeRtXsjg9bA/w-d-xo.html
Looks like pro lens wins to me Marc!
I completely disagree. The whole idea of this test was the show the difference between a crappy kit lens and great camera vs a good prime and a lesser camera
Loosely quoting this comparison I heard once "A lens is like human's eyes and a camera is like a brain. You cannot expect your brain to register and process a high quality image if you have bad eyesight". I started not so long ago with Canon RP + RF 24-105 mm f4. I am still a beginner but this little setup delivers great results and bring me a lot of joy :)
I think most of the difference comes from the different focal lengths. The prime lens works like a 130mm full frame lens and you get the separation
Oh no f/2.8 vs. f/5.6 is a huge difference for portraiture. Sure the 85mm helps, but...not that much.
You dont get more bokeh on aps-c bodies, it is quite the opposite.
Dude to the physics, to achieve the same framing you have to stand further away from a subject, thus DOF is less. Crop sensor as name suggests simply crops the lens output, it does not zoom in physically
I've always put two-thirds of my budget on lenses and one-third on cameras. It seems to work.
I was always taught that you buy the best lens you can afford and then think about what that leaves you with for the body when beginning. I have always taken this to heart, and your video demonstrates this perfectly. Thank you for the demonstration.
Hi how can l start your school of photography from the very start thank u.
Hi Roy, click here www.theschoolofphotography.com/courses/membership and scroll down to buying options. Thanks 😊
Well to be honest...you should have used two zoom lenses or two primes, because primes always are sharper than zoom lenses, even with nowadays improved technologies. But overall...Nice comparison. Greetz from Belgium.😊
Amazing! You have proven a point bro that many beginners get wrong. It is better to invest on lenses rather than changing hoping from camera to camera.
Do you recommend the canon 70d with a decent lens or a r100 with a kit lens?
I’m a bit more old school , 1dx + 70-210 f/4 IS USM , works a treat 😉
Love the video though , great example of what’s really important,
“it’s all about the glass”
(Please note , favourite lens at moment, is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art) 😊
Its a great lens !
Both lens are push pin for me. I'm currently looking for ef 70-200 but the IS version. Mostly for portraits and street photo. Also a wish for a good kind of 50mm. Probably EF verson on canon rp.
Funny thing… I own that 85mm f/2 “pro” lens and recently bought the RF 100mm f/2.8 L macro in hopes of being able to sell the 85mm. I’ve yet to be able to compare them on the R6 Mark II but I’m going to throw in the RF 24-105 f/4 L to the mix when I do compare them. I really feel I won’t need to keep the 85mm when that’s all said and done. I can recoup about $300 by selling the 85mm to MPB or KEH and I really think that’ll be a good idea. I’d like to get the 14-35mm f/4 or 70-200mm f/4 instead, I just don’t know which would be smarter. Especially since I own the budget RF 100-400mm lens. I’m leaning toward the 14-35mm. I just really want the 70-200!
The 85mm "pro" is hard to love at f2
That budget body is like a pro one in my eyes If you would've used something like the canon eos 2000d/Rebel T7. Would it still have performed as well up against the Pro body with the kit lens?
7:37, the cropped sensor gives you greater depth of field, which means more in focus at any aperture, compared to a full frame equivalent. It's harder to get the background blur with APS-C.
I totally agree about the cheap body quality glass. He images are immediately noticeable as sharper. What a difference you know. Shooting experience aside, for a controlled shoot like this portrait session, you'd get better results saving all that money and buying better lenses versus getting that nicer body. Any image will only be as good as the glass that allows the light through to be. now the nice glass on the higher end camera versus the entry camera and cheap lens, yikes, that's a world of difference. Would be great to see the cheap camera quality glass verse the quality camera and quality glass. Are the images themselves really £5000 better? This is leaving the shooting experience and other features out, just image quality. My bet is that image quality isn't allmtjat much better in regular and controlled shoots. Extremes like ISO and autofocus for moving subjects, it's obvious a better system will make getting keepers less of a challenge. Not everyone needs those features or shoots that subject matter.
^This. The crop factor does not change the actual focal length which many seem to forget, so there is no change in depth of field using the same lens on FF and APS-C if the distance remains the same. However to get the same framing one would stand further back with APS-C which results in an increase of DOF.
@Mikri90 Sure, I mean it's a more complicated way to look at it, from focal length perspective, no, but from the aperture perspective maybe. I mean you aren't wrong but I haven't thought of it this way.
This is kind of odd though. Think about this... Let's start at 35mm lens on a Full Frame (35mm camera). Let's say it's F2. If you get a wider angle it's harder to get a shallower DOF. If you get a telephoto you'll have a harder time with a lot of DOF. So taking that 35mm lens to Medium Format will give you a wider field of view but shallower DOF, opposite form what it's supposed to be. Now, if you go to a crop sensor you'll get a more zoomed in version of the lens focal length but also more DOF. Kinda funny how that works. Staying in the same format though and the expected happens: going wider gives you a greater DOF and going longer gives you shallower DOF. It just behaves differently when taking the same focal length to those differing formats.
Agree. the lens quality in most cases is the most important ...
Agree with you 100%. Superb video.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Using super sharp lens for portraits is not a good idea. You see all skin imperfections. Imho
I recently bought a R100, what is the best lens you would suggest for me to get it. I usually capture Landscape, street, but I want to get into the career so I am thinking to give product photography a chance. Appreciate your advise on the both the queries.
The video shows us how important the lenses are and the difference they would make for the final results.
Can you do a video Rf 85mm f/2 VS Rf 85mm f/1.2, and Rf 35mm f1.8 VS Rf 35mm 1.4? Because they are many photography want to see, many thanks for your help, hopefully can see they're soon.
Depends if you are shooting fast action or landscapes
Love my local Wex. I’ve just changed my main camera brand so traded in stuff. I’m always happy with the deal and the advice.
Neat video. I'm a hobbyist recently getting back into photography. I agree that the shots from the prime look better. The kit lens here has some pretty big limitations with its apertures, but even so I like the headshot with the trees repeating into the background. Skill is the most important factor, I think! I do wonder how far this goes. I don't know Canon's products, but it looks like they have an 85mm f/1.2 lens that sells for $2,600 or so. Is that noticeably better than the 85mm f/2? Or would the difference depend on 'pixel peeping."?
Thanks for sharing 👍
Auto focus is significantly bettter on the 1.2
That’s why it’s for professionals and not for hobbyists
What white balance is used here please? The temperature seems to be around 5300 I guess? Also, if you can please try RF lense on R5 next time? 😅 A kit lens Like 24-105 or 24-50 maybe?
I agree Marc , thanks for the video
You are very welcome 😊
Marc, I agree with you. Thanks for sharing this.
Glad you enjoyed it Michael 👍
Back in 2020 when I swapped from a nikon 3000 series to a sony a7rIV I was considering buying an a7III instead. I started comparing the benefits I would get from the d3300 to the a7III and realized that even the basic kit 50mm that came with them were better across the board than the nikon lenses I had at the time. In that specific case I chose a higher quality body over getting high quality glass.
Granted it is a niche case, but just a reminder that if you are going from an older pro camera to a newer one the glass will be the biggest point. But if you are changing to a new platform from an old system sometimes everything is just overall better.
Hi, I'm just wondering did you do any color grading for your pictures? Is it normal for photographers to do color grading? My photos look wrose without them😂
please compare the mobile apps that connect to mirrorless cameras: cannon camera connect vs sony imaging edge vs monitor+ vs ....?
just added a sony 200-600 to my a6400 instead of going full frame and don't regret it.
Agree the difference is in the glass. More interesting the comparison between Highend glasses Brand vs. 3rd party in the same tier (e.g. Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji vs. SIgma vs. Samyang et al.) Even so the comparison between a new High density sensor vs. an older lower density sensor in the same Size (so reducing at least one variable)
The feeling of the picture is completly different (85mm looks much better) but.... If you would use 50mm 1.8 on R5 vs 50mm F1.2 on R100 (or better cheapest full frame), then the test would be valid. 85mm and 18-45mm it is fare off. My advice, take the cheapest full frame with the best 50mm and the best body with the cheapest 50mm.
Here you go th-cam.com/video/oeRtXsjg9bA/w-d-xo.html
If you take the best from each camera and make a 20x24 inch print, and only looking at the quality and ignoring the difference in depth of field, could you say one lens is better than the other? That is the real question. Images converted to dots per inch is the final test.
Looking at those comparisons the Bokeh was significantly better but there is a special charm to those Budget lens on pro camera shots If you've got the taste for it. I just did a Professional Event Shoot using two very old Canon Kit Lenses adapted onto an R8 and some of the results were absolutely phenomenal, never seen those lenses perform as incredibly as they did on that camera. As always Results depend on what you're looking for and what you can afford.
Personally, I'd say get a body one step below "Pro level" if you hug the poverty line (as I do) but really need a good camera. All you'll lose out on is a couple extra features that aren't fully necessary, maybe battery life and an extra card slot. But the performance and versatility will be worth it. If you throw your money into a single good lens on a cheap camera, you'll have less versatility (overall).
(Just my two cents if anyone is interested :D)
My question is if you go for the middle price range do you get the best of both worlds or the worst ❓Like I have a Sony 6400 and some mid priced lenses am I getting the best value or should I spend more on one or the other ❓🤠
Depends what your shoot? I find my A6400 view finder too small for fast moving subjects and so prefer my full frame body. Can I see the difference between my Tamron and Sony GM or G lenses-no I can’t for most things. But in low light which is my norm I need the lower f stop lenses to get the shot. I also like the faster frame rate, pre capture and focus stacking on my newer and more expensive bodies. But if I shot portraits or still life where mostly you can have a couple of gos at taking the shot then the f4 cheaper lenses are fine 😊
Would be interesting to have the comparison with the R5 with the prime lens!
Coming soon 😊
IMHO, best lens is a nifty 50mm prime, and the best camera is one that you have on you.
Having said that. After 40 years of lugging around medium format and full frame, I now carry a Canon R7 with the Sigma RF 18-50mm F2.8 lens and Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8, because it is way smaller and lighter than my 5D mkII and 5D mkIII with 5 L lenses that I gave them to my niece last year.
I really want a mirrorless, but now I'm wondering if I should get a new lens instead. That comparison was amazing.
My thing is that I'm on a dslr (250d) and OVF is annoying the hell out of me (modern day problems), but I could always just keep taking shots and improving anyways 🤷🏾♂️
Choices choices choices!
Thanks for messing with my brain😅
I have just gone back to a dslr for my larger camera purely for the ergonomics! I still have my Fuji x-t30 mirrorless. I use the viewfinder almost exclusively as I need reading glasses so don’t often use the screen (however on can actually see it on the dslr). I’m still getting used to where stuff is from muscle memory but I keep forgetting that the view in the viewfinder isn’t the correct or almost correct exposure that it was on the mirrorless. Ended up with a few shockers 😂 on the plus side the joy of the battery life on a dslr is wonderful
Beautiful ❤️ thanks for sharing your wisdom
You are so welcome
Can't really be told that way, depends on what you need.
Example:
I started on a Canon M50, changed to an older Sony full frame (A7 II) and arriving at a 7R III.
However, pairing this older, cheaper A7 II body with good lenses was absolutely fine, however the body limited my possibilities by his offerings in terms of video capabilities (very weak 1080 footage with lots of Moiré). So even putting a pro-grade super expensive 2000€ 50mm f1.2 G-Master lens would not have helped me out on this.
You need a good basic compromise between both. A body that is able to deliver the base technology you need, paired with a lens that can make use of these technological capabilities. In theory, lenses have a stronger impact on your image, but if the body restricts you in that creative use of your lens, the lens itself won't help you out, too.
I agree, the lens makes all the difference 😊
The micro contrast and bokeh is apparently superior in the premium glass.
What a great insight
I personally would much rather have a professional lens. I’ve shot with a similar set up for years. Although I know some photographers who prefer a professional camera with the grittiness of a budget lens.
If you are aiming for professional photography, always invest in a better quality body. It is always more weather resistant and it always contains two memory cards instead of a single one in entry cameras, which will keep your files better, and this wristband will give you additional features that you won't get in entry cameras. Such as a stabilized and stacked sensor and faster and sharper autofocus. Expensive lenses can always be rented if you need them for a special project.
Can’t disagree with anyone here. Buy the Pro glass every-time.
I like the cheap lens + R5 combo better, am I the only one? I prefer the deeper depth of field that includes more of the environment in the shot and creates additional depth in the frame. The most obvious example is the third picture, two sharp three trunks on both sides and bokeh for the rest of the background does not do anything for me, compared with the multiple layers of birch in the cheap lens picture. Just my 2 cents.
I Think a pro Body will give the photographer, more comfort in use, and very useful resources like IBIS and a reliable sensor in high Iso. But the lens is what pass the feeling of the image, the sharpness and that pro photo taste.
I think all photos look brilliant
A bit of correction! With the R5 MKII out now the R5 is no longer 4,000 pounds. If you go to WEX photography right now they are selling it for 3,649.
Well this is true in today's world. If you are doing something similar with DSLR's you would quickly notice that the body makes a difference specially in focusing and also ISO performance. I bet if you use a budget DSLR from back in the day with same lenses you would notice right away the images have a lot of noise as soon as you move the ISO a little higher.
What works is if you know how to take good images, then the body really doesn't matter. For somebody who is not a seasoned pro I would say a better body is always better than pro glass. A better body with decent lenses will serve you way better in all situations than a cheap body with pro glass.
Glass is key!!!
I’ve recently started photography and my first purchase is the Canon R50 with the nifty fifty lens, and to be honest they look really good
Good choice!
Actually, I experimented on this with my old rebel and 5Dii. Rebel is still rubbish even with nice lens. I am not pretty much sure with mirrorless ones, but this shows a good basis for me.
I prefer the pro lens or in other words, the better lens.
Let's not forget that even if you have both professional gears, you still need a good light.
I'll take the pro body every day, for the user experience. I actually like cheaper lenses and tend to use them a lot more than the high end stuff, even when both are an option.
Definitely a pro lens is HUGELY more important. This year I've found that lens is more important then even the sensor size. Top Pro micro 4/3 lenses with modern mft camera perform AT LEAST as good as FF camera with mediocre lenses (like 24-105) or even better.
Pro lens+ budget camera seems better
The cheap body with professional lens lens has better colour definition and balance a good quality lens makes a world of different when taking photos because the difference in camera bodies doesn't always mean lack of quality on cheaper body's they have smaller sensors lack the flashier tools that the more expensive bodies have but also part of the price difference comes from the fact that more expensive camera bodies have a better build quality for better durability as well as some sort of weather proofing all of which doesn't come cheap
Absolutely night and day. As much as everyone always says this, seeing it is mind boggling.
Thanks Dan 😊
Always get good glass.
If I had to choose then I’d always opt to spend more money on good quality glass over a good quality body every day of the week !!!!!!
It's all about glass. But I wonder, the RF85 2.0 is a "Pro Glass"
Nothing to see here just 2 guys in the woods with a camera!!😂
Thanks for the video and the test. I feel that comparing the 24 - 105 kit lens @ 85mm mounted on the R5 with the @85 mm prime lens mounted on the R100 would have been a fairer comparison. Also it depends on the look you're going for. Creamy bokeh isn't for everyone. The test just goes to show how good the R100 really is and that for most of us buying a high end camera would be a waste of money
It's all about the glass.
Glass glass glass it’s alway best to put your money into better glass unless a body is holding you back. I think many think they have to have the latest and greatest body when a few year old body may get the job done. I have several lenses that are 10 15 20 or more years old that I still use. I don’t use any 20 year old bodies though. Plus good glass will always benefit from a newer body when that time comes. Bad glass and its flaws will only be revealed more and more with newer bodies IMHO
Photos shot on a 50mm 1.2 L series lens on a cheap body are always going to be better than photos shot on an expensive body with a cheap nifty fifty 1.8... unless you need full frame, or fast fps for sports or wildlife...
If you set your exposure to F2.8 - 1/400 - ISO 200 on a cheap body and expensive body, you're going to get pretty much the same result with the same lens... but if you put the cheap lens on the expensive body and vice versa.. from experience.. i get better results from the cheap body with the better lens
Pro lens will give you better quality images. And blown out backgrounds in portraits with 1.4 apertures not forgetting bokeh.. I am a subscriber
As per the old adage, "Date the camera, marry the lens ".........
Like that 👍
A more accurate test would have been:
pro lens -amateur camera : Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L USM + Canon R100
vs
amateur lens- pro camera: Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS + Canon R5
Here you go th-cam.com/video/oeRtXsjg9bA/w-d-xo.html
Pro lens will give a better photo than a cheap lens. Obvious as the lens is the medium the light travels through. The body just records it.
Depends on if you shoot video or photos
The lens is most important, the camera is not.
I think all the Emmyleigh type upper-middle-class folk with the R5 daddy got them with a full SUITE of pro lenses have proved time and time again that the photographer is the most important piece of equipment 😂. anyone can set all auto and use a purchased adobe preset for editing. Lighting and compositional knowledge is what youre paying for. I have better half-assed shots with a rebel t7 and kit lens than some """"""professionals"""""" have as their capstone work with over 25k in gear 😂
This is obvious. but yeah you gotta prove to noobs :D
Nice video, but this differene in aperture makes it hard to say which is the betther Setup. In this scene less aperture looks amazing
From other side - most modern photographers/sellers are pretty sure excellent , interesting photos didn't exist before 2023 and completely couldn't exist in '90, '80, '70, '60, '50, '40, '30 of the XX century. Your equipment doesn't matter - right time, right place and You will get satisfaction (someone even was singing about satisfaction :)) with cheapest old machine for 200$ and f/8
It's all about the glass.