Getting back into photography
Getting back into photography
Author
Discussion

pidsy

Original Poster:

8,621 posts

182 months

Sunday 3rd May
quotequote all
I used to love getting out with my cameras - going back about 10 years. Then circumstances changed and all my gear ended up in the loft.

I would love to get back into it and I’m aware technology has moved on so my questions are:

My 2 canon DSLR bodies are now dinosaurs by today’s standards - I would like to go mirrorless, but I have always used Canon so would like to use my original lenses.

I have looked at getting an R7 body - there is an adaptor available to use my old fitment lenses - is this the way to go? Is this method detrimental to images?

Is the R7 a good camera? - I’m happy to spend around £1k.

I had (have) a 2014 MacBook Pro- with a long gone cheap subscription to Lightroom - which I loved.
I’m guessing that age MacBook won’t now be much use?

Is lightroom still a thing? What else should I be looking at?

Thanks.

bcr5784

7,403 posts

170 months

Sunday 3rd May
quotequote all
pidsy said:
I used to love getting out with my cameras - going back about 10 years. Then circumstances changed and all my gear ended up in the loft.

I would love to get back into it and I m aware technology has moved on so my questions are:

My 2 canon DSLR bodies are now dinosaurs by today s standards - I would like to go mirrorless, but I have always used Canon so would like to use my original lenses.

I have looked at getting an R7 body - there is an adaptor available to use my old fitment lenses - is this the way to go? Is this method detrimental to images?

Is the R7 a good camera? - I m happy to spend around £1k.

I had (have) a 2014 MacBook Pro- with a long gone cheap subscription to Lightroom - which I loved.
I m guessing that age MacBook won t now be much use?

Is lightroom still a thing? What else should I be looking at?

Thanks.
I have an R7 - and I'm very pleased with it. The only real downside is the lack of RFS lenses and few 3rd party lenses to choose from RF lenses work fine - but they tend to be both heavy and expensive As you say the you can use your old lenses with an adapter. The genuine Canon adapter works well (not all the 3rd party ones get such good reviews.) - but you do up finish up with a more bulk than is ideal.
Whether the lack of lens choice is an issue depends on the type of photography you do - I'd give some thought to whether the choice of lenses available suits your need s before deciding an R7 is your best choice.

Re lightroom, you will find lots of discussion of its merits and cost if you scroll now to the Lightroom alternatives topic. Perhaps others can comment on your Macbook-.

pidsy

Original Poster:

8,621 posts

182 months

Sunday 3rd May
quotequote all
Thanks bcr.

Lens wise - one of the reasons I want to use what I have is that I have everything I need to shoot what I like.
It was expensive kit and not worth a reasonable amount second hand so I’d rather stick with.

I would only ever use the original Canon adaptor.

DIW35

4,197 posts

225 months

Sunday 3rd May
quotequote all
I use my EF lenses with a Canon adapter on my R5 and they work just fine. I too had too much invested in my EF lenses to just ify selling them for peanuts, so went the convertor route and haven't had any problems.

Simpo Two

91,734 posts

290 months

Sunday 3rd May
quotequote all
You loved using your old cameras, and they still work just as well as they did then. So why the desire to immediately bin them (and at some expense)?

StevieBee

14,976 posts

280 months

Simpo Two said:
You loved using your old cameras, and they still work just as well as they did then. So why the desire to immediately bin them (and at some expense)?
Definitely this - and use that money to invest in a new lap top instead.

A more up to date lap top has many beneficial uses beyond photography and if you do decide to go mirrorless at some point in the future, You'll have a computer better able to handle the file sizes that creates and the modern software needed.

Lightroom remains king of the hill but the subscription - v - features may be out of kilter with your needs and good alternatives exist.



pidsy

Original Poster:

8,621 posts

182 months

That’s fair from both - I assumed that the bodies I have are now considered low grade. Camera phones have higher resolution.

Easternlight

3,861 posts

169 months

pidsy said:
That s fair from both - I assumed that the bodies I have are now considered low grade. Camera phones have higher resolution.
Doesn't mean they take a better picture.

pidsy

Original Poster:

8,621 posts

182 months

I’ll get everything down from the loft and see what condition they’re in.
Mirrorless would be a smaller lighter package overall.

littleredrooster

6,226 posts

221 months

If they've all been stored in the loft, it may be worth checking for mould/algae growth, especially on the lens elements. 5 years storage rendered all my lenses useless...

Derek Smith

49,058 posts

273 months

pidsy said:
That s fair from both - I assumed that the bodies I have are now considered low grade. Camera phones have higher resolution.
Don't fall for the file size. I have a 48mp mobile and one of my cameras is a lowly 20mp. But the camera wins every time on image quality.

bcr5784

7,403 posts

170 months

Derek Smith said:
Don't fall for the file size. I have a 48mp mobile and one of my cameras is a lowly 20mp. But the camera wins every time on image quality.
I'll second that - I have a number of cameras with 1" or APS C sensors with 20-36mpx sensors and short or long zooms. My phone cameras don't get even close.That said it's fair to say that phone cameras have come a long way in recent years and can produce results that are perfectly satisfactory for many in undemanding conditions.

Simpo Two

91,734 posts

290 months

Derek Smith said:
pidsy said:
That s fair from both - I assumed that the bodies I have are now considered low grade. Camera phones have higher resolution.
Don't fall for the file size. I have a 48mp mobile and one of my cameras is a lowly 20mp. But the camera wins every time on image quality.
Most of my wedding photography was done with a 10Mp camera. Nobody ever said 'But there aren't enough pixels'. Beyond a point - and the ability to crop (possibly because you used the wrong lens) - all you get is huge files. What you want is quality pixels and a controllable ergonomic camera.

Of course there is the old spectre of Gear Acquisition Syndrome to avoid too smile

Steve_H80

566 posts

47 months

As said just use the old cameras if they still work.
The actual quality of photos produced hasn't changed that much in the last 10 years, the real development has been in connectivity and in camera tech.
My cameras have lots of stuff I never use because at heart I'm still thinking slides and monochrome.

pidsy

Original Poster:

8,621 posts

182 months

Thanks all.

I’ll get it all down this week and see where we are.

Appreciate the help.