# Black Friday sales for Canon



## ulrichsd (Nov 4, 2021)

Hi all, I currently have a 10 year old Nikon D7000 and was looking to upgrade.

I saw on this site that there will be a Black Friday discount for $1000 off EOS R + 24-105mm F/4 (or $800 off the R body). Since the regular price of the kit is $2899, that would be $1899 (+tax). Does anyone know if these Canon Rumors prices listed for Black Friday tend to be true?

My budget is about $2000 (could sell some Nikon stuff and go higher if needed). I'm a non-pro/advanced amateur, and my photography is family, travel, kids soccer, landscapes, wildlife and a little video (in that order). I know the limitations of the frame rate (5 fps w/AF, 8 w/o), but my D7000 is only 6 fps so not optimal but fine for kids sports. At some point I'd add add one of the 100-400mm zooms and probably the 16mm prime.

Any advice would be awesome, thank you!!

Scott


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Nov 5, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Hi all, I currently have a 10 year old Nikon D7000 and was looking to upgrade.
> 
> I saw on this site that there will be a Black Friday discount for $1000 off EOS R + 24-105mm F/4 (or $800 off the R body). Since the regular price of the kit is $2899, that would be $1899 (+tax). Does anyone know if these Canon Rumors prices listed for Black Friday tend to be true?
> 
> ...


Not sure how much faith I would put into their deals. WRT the adapter deals, the prices shown are the standard MSRP/MAP prices:
=====================
Mount Adapters:
$300 off on Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R: $99 at Amazon, B&H, Adorama.
Canon Control Ring Mount Adapter EF-EOS R: $199 at Amazon, B&H, Adorama.
=====================

And the same goes for the R body as well as the R with 24-105 f/4 kit.

If you can budget a few more dollars, you might want to look at the R6 ($2299 right now through CPW) with either the 24-105 f/4 or one of the non-L lenses. The R6 has IBIS and is quite a bit faster than the R (I have both).


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 5, 2021)

Thanks! I think you are correct, I think that is the current deal and the $1000 off is probably off the original MSRP of the R + lens.

I'm thinking about going the other way and maybe getting the RP? I actually really like my prime lenses so it would give a compact full frame kit. I can always pick up a second body in a few years that would have a higher fps... at the moment 8 year old soccer isn't that fast paced 

I can wait to see if anything comes down in price, but this is what I'm thinking:
$899 Canon RP
$299 Canon 16mm f/2.8
$399 Canon 35mm f/1.8 macro
$199 Canon 50mm f/1.8
$599 Canon 85mm f/2
$649 Canon 100-400


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 6, 2021)

If you are a Nikon shooter, then I would look at the Nikon Mirrorless options. I am assuming that you already have some Nikon lenses. If they are AF-S or AF-P, then they should work fine with the FTZ adapter. The Nikon Z5 is much better camera than the RP in my opinion (I've owned both). It has a much better sensor in terms of noise and Dynamic Range, has two card slots and IBIS. I bought one refurbished for $899, (I think the usual refurbished price is $999). I would actually recommend the Z5 over the R as well, although the R has a sensor essentially equal to the Z5, but, again the R has one card slot and no IBIS. Of course, IBIS may not be an issue if your lenses have stabilization.


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 6, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> If you are a Nikon shooter, then I would look at the Nikon Mirrorless options. I am assuming that you already have some Nikon lenses. If they are AF-S or AF-P, then they should work fine with the FTZ adapter. The Nikon Z5 is much better camera than the RP in my opinion (I've owned both). It has a much better sensor in terms of noise and Dynamic Range, has two card slots and IBIS. I bought one refurbished for $899, (I think the usual refurbished price is $999). I would actually recommend the Z5 over the R as well, although the R has a sensor essentially equal to the Z5, but, again the R has one card slot and no IBIS. Of course, IBIS may not be an issue if your lenses have stabilization.


I have a bunch of lenses but only 2 will focus with the ftz adapter:
Nikon 70-300mm afs - will focus w/ ftz
Nikon 24-120mm - will focus with ftz
Nikon 35mm - dx lens
Tokina 12-24 - dx lens and won't focus
50mm af-d - won't focus
Nikon 80-200mm af-d - won't focus
Sigma 24-120mm - dx lens

So the $300 adapter is probably more expensive than those 2 lenses would sell for used. I'm not opposed to selling everything and moving on.

Plus the Nikon z 100-400 is almost $3000, which I'm sure it's nice but there are no lower cost telephoto lenses for the z system. And no lower cost primes like the 16mm, 50mm, etc. I liked the nikon z 5 specs but not the current lens selection.


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 6, 2021)

So the Z5 does seem like a good camera, and they have the Z5 refurbished kit w/ 24-200mm for $1800 and 40mm f/2 is $300. I was a little swayed by the reported improvements in autofocus for Canon/Sony, but obviously the Z5 would be a big upgrade over my D7000. It would be nice if the FTZ adapter was cheaper like Canons for $100 (although none are in stock) since at $300 it would cost more than the used price of my 70-300 AF-S.

And I can just wait until they come out with a wide prime 16 or 20mm. And wait for a 100-400 lens or maybe splurge on the announced future 200-600mm.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 7, 2021)

The 24-200 z is a really fine lens. And put the camera in DX crop mode and now you're up to a 300mm zoom. Coupled with the z5, I rarely needed any other lenses. I would check MPB or KEH or Ebay for used FTZ adapters...or even Adorama or B&H. A month ago I bought a refurbished one directly from Nikon for $125, so cheaper ones can be had.


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 11, 2021)

Back to deciding between the Z5 and EOS R - the Z5 is $999 refurbished and the R is $1439 refurbished. Waiting to see if either of those come down with black friday pricing.

Main advantage of the Canon R over the Z5 is the current RF lenses. I love primes, so the 16mm for $299 would be a great wide option compared to the $1100 14-30 for the Z lens. And Nikon doesn't have a low any long tele over 200mm, and when they do come out will likely be over $2k. While Canon has a $650 100-400, which would be perfect for me. Those two with the 24-240mm, 50 and 85mm primes, and I'm set forever


----------



## AlanF (Nov 11, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Back to deciding between the Z5 and EOS R - the Z5 is $999 refurbished and the R is $1439 refurbished. Waiting to see if either of those come down with black friday pricing.
> 
> Main advantage of the Canon R over the Z5 is the current RF lenses. I love primes, so the 16mm for $299 would be a great wide option compared to the $1100 14-30 for the Z lens. And Nikon doesn't have a low any long tele over 200mm, and when they do come out will likely be over $2k. While Canon has a $650 100-400, which would be perfect for me. Those two with the 24-240mm, 50 and 85mm primes, and I'm set forever


Nikon has brought out a Z 100-400 f/5.6, and it's well over $2000, at £2700 in UK.


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Nikon has brought out a Z 100-400 f/5.6, and it's well over $2000, at £2700 in UK.



Yeah, its $2700 preorder right now. Its a full stop faster lens (4.5-5.6 Nikon vs the Canon 5.6-8) and I'm sure nicer, but the Canon is only $650, so I can actually afford it LOL


----------



## 3-IN-ONE (Nov 12, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Back to deciding between the Z5 and EOS R - the Z5 is $999 refurbished and the R is $1439 refurbished. Waiting to see if either of those come down with black friday pricing.
> 
> Main advantage of the Canon R over the Z5 is the current RF lenses. I love primes, so the 16mm for $299 would be a great wide option compared to the $1100 14-30 for the Z lens. And Nikon doesn't have a low any long tele over 200mm, and when they do come out will likely be over $2k. While Canon has a $650 100-400, which would be perfect for me. Those two with the 24-240mm, 50 and 85mm primes, and I'm set forever


This actually was the reason I went with Canon RP and the 35mm f1.8. I'm a Fujifilm user, but I really wanted that shallow depth of field. I'm not ashamed (not anymore at least!) I also value compactness, lightness, and budget friendliness. Canon pretty much fits the bill. Canon releasing budget friendly lenses is such a big deal. I'm not a professional or want to look like one. I don't need L lenses. Canon provides a good balance for hobbyist like myself. Their non L lenses are good enough and they are "cheap". It's crazy that even if Samyang made a 50mm f1.8 for the RF mount it still wouldn't be as small or as cheap as Canon's version.

Yes, the Nikon Z5 is technically better than the RP and maybe the R, but the body is larger and heavier. The Z mount lenses are heavy and expensive also. Their budget line is probably going to use plastic lens mounts based on the 40mm f2, and that lens is still $299! Pass.

The RPs sensor does bum me out slightly. All the charts make it seem like a 10 year old sensor. I do see pushing the shadows is noisier than even my Fuji's aps-c sensor, though I think the x-trans iv sensor is better than most aps-c and similar to most full frames. But a normal well exposed shot from the RP looks so silky smooth.


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 12, 2021)

3-IN-ONE said:


> This actually was the reason I went with Canon RP and the 35mm f1.8. I'm a Fujifilm user, but I really wanted that shallow depth of field. I'm not ashamed (not anymore at least!) I also value compactness, lightness, and budget friendliness. Canon pretty much fits the bill. Canon releasing budget friendly lenses is such a big deal. I'm not a professional or want to look like one. I don't need L lenses. Canon provides a good balance for hobbyist like myself. Their non L lenses are good enough and they are "cheap". It's crazy that even if Samyang made a 50mm f1.8 for the RF mount it still wouldn't be as small or as cheap as Canon's version.
> 
> Yes, the Nikon Z5 is technically better than the RP and maybe the R, but the body is larger and heavier. The Z mount lenses are heavy and expensive also. Their budget line is probably going to use plastic lens mounts based on the 40mm f2, and that lens is still $299! Pass.
> 
> The RPs sensor does bum me out slightly. All the charts make it seem like a 10 year old sensor. I do see pushing the shadows is noisier than even my Fuji's aps-c sensor, though I think the x-trans iv sensor is better than most aps-c and similar to most full frames. But a normal well exposed shot from the RP looks so silky smooth.



Yeah, its like there are just too many choices  I just need to wait and see as I'm sure we'll see some really good deals as we get closer to Thanksgiving.

But current pricing for cameras in my budget are:
Canon RP refurb $899
Nikon Z5 refurb $999
Nikon Z6 refurb $1299
Canon R refurb $1439

And with kits:
RP w 24-240 $1710
Z 5 w 24-200mm $1800
Z6 w 24-70 f/4 $1800
Z6 w 24-200 $2200
R w 24-240 $2210

I've never been a big superzoom user, but all the reviews on the 24-200 have been great so it would be nice to have an all-in-one that didn't sacrifice to much image quality.

And yes, the plastic mount on the 40mm is crazy... how much does that save, maybe $0.50 in metal and 1 gram in weight? Disappointing. I've been with Nikon 10 years, but I think Canon has been better at designing consumer grade lenses even for DSLRs.


----------



## 3-IN-ONE (Nov 12, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Yeah, its like there are just too many choices  I just need to wait and see as I'm sure we'll see some really good deals as we get closer to Thanksgiving.
> 
> But current pricing for cameras in my budget are:
> Canon RP refurb $899
> ...


I feel like all the best prices were already out by this time last year, so I'm not sure if there will be anything great. I did purchase the camera and lens from best buy so as long they don't just go on sale for Black Friday only, I should be able to get a price match through January. They already matched the $499 to $399 price drop on the 35mm f1.8 for me.

I'm looking into getting a super zoom but will probably get the tamron 18-300 for X mount. I'm going to stick with small primes on the RP.


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 13, 2021)

3-IN-ONE said:


> I feel like all the best prices were already out by this time last year, so I'm not sure if there will be anything great. I did purchase the camera and lens from best buy so as long they don't just go on sale for Black Friday only, I should be able to get a price match through January. They already matched the $499 to $399 price drop on the 35mm f1.8 for me.
> 
> I'm looking into getting a super zoom but will probably get the tamron 18-300 for X mount. I'm going to stick with small primes on the RP.


I think I've made my decision and it wasn't easy. The RP is a nice travel light camera and I really do prefer Canon's lens options. 

But... I'm going to get the Z6 with 24-70 f/4 for $1800. And I'll pick up a used FTZ so I can use my current 70-300mm AF-S lens. I just know I'm going to keep this camera for 5+ years so I think I'll be a little happier with some of the upgrades like the higher frame rate, IBIS, uncropped 4k video, better high ISO performance. Those two lenses will do most of the work and maybe I'll get a prime or two down the road. Plus I have a few EL-EN batteries and a SD-600 flash that I can use and won't have to replace on the Canon system.

You are probably right on some of these deals - the $1800 price on B&H is $500 less than Nikon's website, so I'm assuming they just have the deal out a little earlier.

Thanks! Scott


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 13, 2021)

3-IN-ONE said:


> Yes, the Nikon Z5 is technically better than the RP and maybe the R, but the body is larger and heavier. The Z mount lenses are heavy and expensive also. Their budget line is probably going to use plastic lens mounts based on the 40mm f2, and that lens is still $299! Pass.



Just sharing some info, I emailed Thom Hogan asking about his take on the plastic mounts and here's his answer. 

"They’re polycarbonate mounts, which is not exactly “plastic.” You need to rid yourself of your bias here. There’s actually no evidence that the mounts on lenses like the 28mm and 40mm are any worse than metal mounts. Indeed, the evidence is the opposite: the metal mounts brass and wear, the polycarbonate mounts are pretty resistant to anything except perhaps direct blunt shock. My friends at Lens Rentals agree with me on this: there’s no concern whatsoever."

I guess we'll see, but I probably shouldn't get too concerned about a lightweight prime mount  Still waiting to see more reviews, as there aren't many out yet, on the optics of these small consumer Nikon primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> My friends at Lens Rentals agree with me on this: there’s no concern whatsoever."


I haven’t paid attention to their Nikon tear downs, but they’ve found that the metal mounts on mid-range Canon lenses are screwed into a polycarbonate frame. The high-end lenses are metal secured to metal.


----------



## 3-IN-ONE (Nov 13, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Just sharing some info, I emailed Thom Hogan asking about his take on the plastic mounts and here's his answer.
> 
> "They’re polycarbonate mounts, which is not exactly “plastic.” You need to rid yourself of your bias here. There’s actually no evidence that the mounts on lenses like the 28mm and 40mm are any worse than metal mounts. Indeed, the evidence is the opposite: the metal mounts brass and wear, the polycarbonate mounts are pretty resistant to anything except perhaps direct blunt shock. My friends at Lens Rentals agree with me on this: there’s no concern whatsoever."
> 
> I guess we'll see, but I probably shouldn't get too concerned about a lightweight prime mount  Still waiting to see more reviews, as there aren't many out yet, on the optics of these small consumer Nikon primes.





neuroanatomist said:


> I haven’t paid attention to their Nikon tear downs, but they’ve found that the metal mounts on mid-range Canon lenses are screwed into a polycarbonate frame. The high-end lenses are metal secured to metal.



So is the conclusion that plastic lens mounts are better than metal?


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 13, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I haven’t paid attention to their Nikon tear downs, but they’ve found that the metal mounts on mid-range Canon lenses are screwed into a polycarbonate frame. The high-end lenses are metal secured to metal.





3-IN-ONE said:


> So is the conclusion that plastic lens mounts are better than metal?



Just sharing the info. I don't know, so I'm going to make a lot of assumptions  as I've never used a plastic / polycarbonate mount. I'd assume brass is stronger than aluminum, which is stronger than polycarbonate for pure strength, at least it would bend and not break, but if a metal mount is screwed into a polycarbonate frame then the weak point is probably going to be the screw points in terms of leverage. I was annoyed at first, but in the end I guess I'm not going to get too upset about it on a 170 gram, $300 lens.


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 13, 2021)

Just out of curiosity, I was doing some research on polycarbonate, and came across this forum discussion regarding the use of aluminum vs polycarbonate for "bot wars" construction, and polycarbonate seems to be the clear recommendation. Not sure how that translates to lens mounts, but if it is better at surviving a robot-to-robot collision, then maybe there is some truth to it 









Polycarbonate vs. Aluminum


I recommend polycarbonate. Any mechanism extending out of our bumpers (within volume constraints of course) are polycarbonate. Polycarbonate rarely cracks or breaks on impact in standard conditions. The only time we have ever cracked polycarbonate was in 2015 with our polycarbonate tote intake...




www.chiefdelphi.com


----------



## 3-IN-ONE (Nov 13, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Just sharing the info. I don't know, so I'm going to make a lot of assumptions  as I've never used a plastic / polycarbonate mount. I'd assume brass is stronger than aluminum, which is stronger than polycarbonate for pure strength, at least it would bend and not break, but if a metal mount is screwed into a polycarbonate frame then the weak point is probably going to be the screw points in terms of leverage. I was annoyed at first, but in the end I guess I'm not going to get too upset about it on a 170 gram, $300 lens.


I have two plastic mount lenses for my micro 4/3 cameras. They seem fine. I think they weigh about 100 grams though. They mount much more smoothly than metal on metal for sure. 

I personally prefer metal mounts even if attached to plastic mount points.

It's just that when I see a lens with a plastic mount, I feel like the company is making a deliberate effort to cut as many corners as possible. It may not be true, and in fact they may just want to get the word out that plastic lens mounts are better than metal. Nikon has been trying since the E series lenses from the 70s and 80s.


----------



## 3-IN-ONE (Nov 13, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> Just out of curiosity, I was doing some research on polycarbonate, and came across this forum discussion regarding the use of aluminum vs polycarbonate for "bot wars" construction, and polycarbonate seems to be the clear recommendation. Not sure how that translates to lens mounts, but if it is better at surviving a robot-to-robot collision, then maybe there is some truth to it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd definitely prefer polycarbonate over aluminum or any metal in some situations. For instance, I'm fine with the Canon RP using a plastic body. It's lighter and provides better bump protection. 

I just always imagine tiny little black plastic shavings that get onto the sensor from the continuous mount and unmount of plastic mount lenses. But who knows, maybe metal on metal creates more shavings, and there is actually more risk of scratching your sensor when cleaning.

I think there were some Canon rebels where both the camera and the kit lens used plastic mounts. I wonder how well they've held up.


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 13, 2021)

3-IN-ONE said:


> I have two plastic mount lenses for my micro 4/3 cameras. They seem fine. I think they weigh about 100 grams though. They mount much more smoothly than metal on metal for sure.
> 
> I personally prefer metal mounts even if attached to plastic mount points.
> 
> It's just that when I see a lens with a plastic mount, I feel like the company is making a deliberate effort to cut as many corners as possible. It may not be true, and in fact they may just want to get the word out that plastic lens mounts are better than metal. Nikon has been trying since the E series lenses from the 70s and 80s.



Yeah, I 100% agree, it just looks cheaper. It is like the fake wine corks, winemakers say they are better for the wine, but it doesn't matter, I want real cork LOL

I'm not sure if Nikon is pushing that they are better, just sharing what I received from Thom, who is a Nikon enthusiast but not on the Nikon payroll 

I officially ordered my Z6, 24-70 and FTZ adapter, and they are coming Wednesday!


----------



## ulrichsd (Nov 13, 2021)

3-IN-ONE said:


> I just always imagine tiny little black plastic shavings that get onto the sensor from the continuous mount and unmount of plastic mount lenses. But who knows, maybe metal on metal creates more shavings, and there is actually more risk of scratching your sensor when cleaning.


That is funny, I thought the same thing and had asked the same question: "I was just concerned that plastic against metal would leave a bunch of small bits of plastic shavings on the sensor over time"

To which, I received the reply:
"Actually, what most of us have discovered is that metal mounts leave small bits of metal that can get to the mirrorbox or sensor on DSLRs ;~). Just the opposite of your fear."

I guess that the 18-55 dx kit lenses are polycarbonate mounts as well, but I've never owned one, I bought my cameras body-only. so I've never actually owned a plastic mount lens


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2021)

ulrichsd said:


> I guess that the 18-55 dx kit lenses are polycarbonate mounts as well, but I've never owned one, I bought my cameras body-only. so I've never actually owned a plastic mount lens


I own a few – several of the EF-M lenses have plastic mounts.


----------

