Defecting to the dark side (the R)

Recently I rejoined the ILC collective with the M50 and went all-in with the new M50 and EF-M 32mm f/1.4, which by the way, both are worth their weight in gold in my book and the 32mm f/1.4 in particular is a truly remarkable little lens. I can't recommend either highly enough if you are in the M system either is a huge upgrade. An example:

I've been truly smitten by what other folks are getting off the RF system, and when I heard about the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM, I knew that lens said me. You just know some stuff in your gut you know? Well after writing about the future of the M and that at some point as more non-L RF glass comes out, more lower end R bodies come to the table, there's going to be a convergence, and I knew I'm in that convergence. I also gather upcoming entry level R's will sport a 6DII sensor (fine by me) but possibly no EVF. I like my EVFs. I'm a diehard OVF/EVF shooter. It pained me getting through the M and M2, so much I had one of those turret viewfinders (which was a pain, but better than not having one). The M3 had the optional EVF, which I often mounted, but it drove me nuts thinking about possibly having a native EVF so I was thrilled when the M5 came out. The R's EVF is HUGE btw. Say an R6 would likely sport the smaller EVF-DC1 or EVF-DC2, unless, Canon made a new one (maybe). I thought about it and I also know that the EOS R represents a cost effective, highly capable camera. A 6D+ if you will. The R6 will be truly a 6 turf IE gimped somehow pretty radically. I'm more of a 5D shooter. Enter the R. Thus I pushed the button on both.

What got me thinking about going to the R again (even though I previously wrote it off) was how often I was mounting and shooting the M50 + 22 f/2 combo, and mounting the 32mm f/1.4 really for bokeh or macro purposes (when I was too lazy to mount the 28 macro). The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM = EF-M 22mm f/1.1 IS STM to put in perspective, with 0.5x macro capability. That's a lens Canon's just not going to make for the M. Different class. And, affordable for the R, and not a brick. It delivers btw. I can post samples, but plenty of other more gifted folks already have. The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM is superior to the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. If you love the latter, you'll love the former. Anyhow between my love for 35mm, wanting FF results (as I used to own a 5D) and the fact the R doesn't weigh a lot with the RF 35mm, I said to myself, you know what? I'm going to start with an RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM, try some more conservative glass on the adapter (EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, 17-40L, and Tamron 100-400) and wait out additional non-L RF glass equivalents. I can always carry the G1X III around that I still have if I get tired of it.

By the way, my experiences in BestBuy with the R are very different than what I've been getting at home with it. The AF and metering has been extremely reliable vs at BestBuy for whatever reason with the RF 24-105L, it was not.

I have to return the M50 and EF-M's promptly due to holiday return periods expiring shortly. I really thought the M50 and EF-M's were the way to go. Arguably they are for most folks. I'm not most folks though and I know it. The M system (initially) was a haven for folks like myself that were leaving their 5D's and L's behind. Now we have the R and G1XIII to solve those issues largely with the former getting lighter and smaller by dropping the mirror and optimizing glass for shorter flanges, the latter for truly portable power.

The M however has grown up into it's own system since then. Full EF-M lineups, some truly fast glass (32mm f/1.4), effective AF (anyone remember the M?). The M is not going away folks. It represents the new Rebel's going forward. However, in the same way I upgraded from the T3i to the 5DIII years ago, I'm going back to my roots. I should've never sold off the 5DIII, I should've instead, grabbed an M to augment it. Hmmm, that's a thought. Perhaps I should sell my G1X III and keep a 11-22 and 55-200 + M50... Hmmm. Fascinating. Anyhow I'll be doing some write-ups comparing the two and my thoughts as I'm sure I won't be the last ("defector" to the R). The M is an awesome system. So is the R. If you want truly capable DOF and low light though, the R is the way to go. If you want cost effective lightweight/small whole system that makes good tradeoffs that is a large cut above smartphone photography, the M is the way to go.