Need recommendations for beginner camera and lens for bird photography

[keenanbare]

I'm totally new to photography and want to get a camera that I can use mostly for bird photography and for taking pictures during duck hunting of me, my dad, the birds we harvest, pictures of that sort. I may also dabble in some short video and casual pictures with friends, but would mostly be using the camera for bird photography and taking pictures during hunting.

I just recently purchased the Canon M50 Mark II, but am thinking about returning it. I have recently read some forums that it may not work well with telephoto lenses due to it's small/fragile size and build. Also, it seems that Canon is going away from the EF-M mount and towards the RF mount. I've read some forums that have recommended the R10 and R7, and that's currently what I have my eye on. I want something that I can grow into and with.

My price range is flexible, but would say that the upper limit is $2,000 (camera and lens included). Would be willing to go a bit higher if it's worth it.

[amfoto1]

I disagree and think it's best to have both formats use the same mount.

Canon has gone with separate mounts in the past: EF-S lenses that couldn't be fitted to full frame EF mount DSLRs and EF-M lenses that were only usable on M-series mirrorless. At the time, the EF-S mount in particular made some sense, because Canon was virtually the only manufacturer offering both FF and crop-sensor DSLRs. Also, digital was "new". People were just transitioning from film cameras where the 35mm format was so dominant and 135 film was by far the most commonly used.

To prevent confusion and try to avoid people buying the wrong lens for use on their camera, in mid-2004 Canon introduced the first EF-S lenses. The use of a distinct mount went a step further with the lenses for the M-series that was introduced in 2012, since their short back focus prevented those lenses from ever being usable on any of the DSLRs, so a further modified mount was created to prevent that happening accidentally.

It made sense back then to have distinct mounts: one for full frame DSLRs (which also was usable on crop), a crop-only variant for APS-C DSLRs and a crop/mirrorless variant for the APS-C MILC cameras. But today many buyers and certainly most retailers are well acquainted with the different sensor formats and lenses they require. Plus there are now many systems that offer both full frame and crop-sensor cameras using the same lens mount, with minimal customer issues. Even third party lens manufacturers haven't bothered with EF-S mount when they've made lenses for Canon APS-C DSLRs. Finally, like most of today's cameras the R-series full frame cameras are able to recognize a crop-only lens when it's fitted and switch to a crop mode in-camera, while in most cases having sufficient resolution to produce a reasonably usable image even after the rather heavy crop.  

When the R-series were first introduced they were all full frame. That continued to be the case until the middle of last year when the R7 and R10 were introduced. It was a little surprising that Canon labelled their first crop-only lenses "RF-S" because they had stated "no more EF-S lenses" in the first years of the R-series. But it makes sense now. What they meant was that there would be no lenses using a modified mount to prevent them from being attached to a full frame camera.... They weren't saying there wouldn't be specially designed lenses just for crop cameras. Those were still necessary... but for several reasons it was sufficient to just label them "RF-S", while using the same lens mount as full frame.

For example, wide angle RF-S lenses are very necessary, same as they were with EF-S. That's because full frame capable wide angle lenses simply aren't wide enough once they are mounted on an APS-C camera.  There are some other opportunities to save size and weight with RF-S "walk-around" zooms (kit lenses) and up to short teles. But longer teles might as well be full frame capable. You can still lighten your load a lot with an APS-C camera by buying a 300mm instead of a 500mm or a 400mm instead of a 600mm.  The APS-C Canon cameras are like a "free 1.6X teleconverter" built into the camera (where by "free" I mean there's no loss of a stop or more of light the way there is with an actual teleconverter... i.e., a 1.4X that "costs" one stop, a 1.7X that costs 1.5 stops or a 2X that costs two stops).

So there are a lot of reasons to...

• Offer some lenses designed especially for APS-C
• Label those crop-design lenses
• But use the same lens mount for both APS-C and full frame.

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR

[krahe]

There is nothing you've said that I didn't already know, but we will have to agree to disagree. I see little to no benefit to being able to use RF-S lenses on a full frame camera, because I think anyone who makes the jump from an APS-C R-series body to a full frame is going to want to replace any RF-S lenses they might have acquired, because I don't think they'll be satisfied with a "reasonably usable image" that has significantly less detail than they would have gotten from the same lens on their old camera. The other side of the coin is how many RF-S lenses is Canon going to produce? I don't think anyone can answer that right now - probably not even Canon. If they produce a fairly full line of them like they did for the M mount (and to a great degree EF-S as well), then someone will be able to realize one of the major benefits of the M series with an R-series body, which is an all-around compact package. But again, that's still a big "if" that might take years to answer.

What this all really boils down to is that the idea of a compact body and lenses to match and the idea of being able to start small (and cheaper) and grow into something high end are really competing ideas, and the fact that the bodies involved happen to use the same lens mount doesn't eliminate that competition. It might even make it more intense.

[deebatman316]

EOS M was/ is an experimental APS-C mirrorless camera line. When Canon decided to go Full Frame mirrorless they found out the EF-M mount was a limiting factor. The mount was ONLY designed for APS-C. So Canon released a new mount that was able to accommodate a Full Frame sensor. Most manufacturers lens mounts were designed to cover 35mm film. When digital came around most manufacturers kept their existing mount. They used different naming to differentiate between full frame and APS-C lenses. They made the lens so that it would project an APS-C image circle instead. Except Canon made a new hybrid mount called "EF-S". EF-S is mechanically different from the original EF Mount. But its electrically the same as the EF Mount.  

[krahe]

Again, I accept all that. But it doesn't change my argument.

[deebatman316]

The R50 is lighter than the M50 which gives you a nice small R series camera. So there is no point to continue EOS M/ EF-M. The small compact system is useless now with a small R series camera.

[krahe]

If they follow through with a good selection of lenses, that will be true.

[deebatman316]

Canon has been putting lots of effort into the R system. I don't see anymore work with EOS M/ EF-M so its dead at this point.

[krahe]

What "work" is the EOS M/EF-M system in need of?

[deebatman316]

New updated bodies and lenses.

[krahe]

The R50 is only a marginal upgrade over the M50, unless 4K video is important to you, in which case the R50 is more of an advance. As far as lenses go, I'm not aware of any dramatic improvements in R mount lenses that are similarly situated to EF-M lenses, either.