cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/10379978
I’ve started rediscovering photography again after a multi year break, and I’ve currently got a decision to make. I’ve started doing some more macro photography recently, and I’m to the point I would like to purchase a macro lens. However, I now realize that new DSLR cameras seem to be on their way out and mirrorless is what the major manufacturers are moving to. My current gear is a budget Canon DSLR with a kit lens, and a basic 75-300mm.
My question is this. Should I switch to a mirrorless camera before I spend more money on lenses? I don’t have a huge amount of money invested so far, and whatever lens type I buy is most likely what I’m going to have to stay with for many years to come. My hard limit would be $1000 for the body, but preferably $700 or less. Since I would like to stay with Canon, that leaves me with the R100, R50, and RP at the very top end. I am open to other options however, especially if there are good aftermarket lenses and accessories.
Although I know there will still be new and used EF lenses available, I do worry a bit about future camera body upgrade options. I know I’m overthinking this a bit too much, but I’m just curious what other people think.
Canon latest mirrorless bodies are awesome and also good value (but stay away from the R100). As others have said, good native RF lenses are expensive. They have also cheaper options, but what they miss is the good value middle ground usually represented by Sigma and Tamron. One big upside is the EF to RF adapter, that works very well and lets you use the lens you already have before investing. Remember that a lens remains with you decades, contrary to a body, and paying a bit more could really be a good choice in the long run. Just my view, a bit in contrast with many steering you away from Canon. Quality wise, there’s no difference between brands: most importantly a camera should disappear in your hands and be really ergonomic - go in a shop and handle them all!