Defecting to the dark side (the R)

Back2M wrote:

lumenite wrote:

Back2M wrote:

plantdoc wrote:

I am not knocking the R system or even the aging FF dslr. However, what are you shooting and how are you viewing the images? Does the difference between the R and M and M lenses make a difference. Not pixel peeping at 100%. I recently took an M5, 18-150mm M, 11-22mm M and 22mm M on 2 trips. I shot everything from fairly dark churches to scenery. No action pics. I shot RAW and have made 13 x 19 in. prints that are excellent. Post processing in Lightroom and sometimes a couple of PS plugins was all that was necessary. I suspect even 18 x 24 in prints would be very good. I have had a couple 18 x 24 made from my 70D and the not highly regarded 17-85mm apsc lens, but not at 17mm. The details is impressive. To me, the visible output is what matters, not what instruments or 100 - 200% view show. Most people view pics on a small portable device, which is even more forgiving.

Greg

Greg,

I shoot my family, be it in the house, at the park, restaurant, etc. Very much street-like photography + low light if you will. I'll shoot food, kids, objects, whatever.

Oh yeah, it makes a HUGE difference. That R + RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM leaves the M50 + 22mm f/2 in the dust. It's obvious, painfully obvious. Like no pixel peeping needed. The contrast and colors alone render so much differently, forget pixel count and DoF both of which the R also has in it's favor. I could shoot the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM @ f/3.2 and the EF-M 22mm f/2 @ f/2 and it's just duh-duh obvious.

Now the M50 + 22mm f/2 is a fierce combo. As is the 11-22. Don't hear what I'm not saying. But is FF FF? Yup. Are those RF optics all that? Yup. Can I tell? Oh yes.

Let's put this another way; the EOS R should score around 3000 in terms of ISO performance if DXO rated it. The M50? 1200. That EF-M 22mm f/2 is really a 35mm f/3.2 vs the RF's 1.8. 24MP vs 30MP.

I need to pack up my M50 tonight (still haven't), like need-need to, but, maybe I can do a side by side for you. It's not a fair fight though. Numbers don't lie here. I can strip the EXIF for you if it helps folks in a blind-comparison.

I really would like to see the difference between M50+22 and R+35 side-by-side.

Since EOS M is my main system, I am happy with 22, 11-22, and someday 32mm. But if I could afford to have several systems like you, I would go for G1X3 and EOS R. There seems no room for EOS Ms between them.

I'll see what I can do. Busy weekend ahead and I need to have it to FedEx by Monday plus wife has dental work tomorrow so it could be a rough weekend since I may be busy with picking up slack with the kids. Should have some good samples and comparison the other side of the weekend though one way or another. Better samples if I get some quality time.

Do not rush, but take your time.

I'd also like to compare the EF 50mm f/1.4 (adapted) on the R against the 32mm on the M. Should be interesting too.

It sounds very interesting w.r.t. IQ at their corresponding apertures. More because I strongly doubt that Canon will release RF 50 1.4 in the near future.

The Tamron (100-400) arrives today, as long as it works on the adapter (the YN 50mm f/1.4 didn't) it may get alot of love.

Tamron 100-400 is another one that I am interested in. Please tell me about it a little bit. Especially with EOS M50.

The M certainly has a place, especially if cost is a concern. Trust me the R wasn't my first choice financially... I also am tempted to sell the G1X III for fiscal reasons, but I probably won't as I suspect I'll regret it if I do. I don't need the money, but the G1X III may or may not see love, we'll see and that's alot of money sitting in a drawer.

I wouldn't be quick to jump to the R if cost is anywhere in the equation as I'm at nearly 3K after taxes with just the R and RF 35, not anything else vs the M50 + M's was 2K (without the 18-150) for the whole system. However, if you have the money, don't kid yourself, the R with RF glass is vastly superior to the M with M glass. Vastly bigger, heavier too though. No way to have that cake and eat it too, except with the R + RF 35 right now. Until more conservative native glass comes out, it's going to be a beheamoth with most lenses adapted.

Everyone knows R system is better than M. As you mentioned, one obstacle to take R is money and the other is size and weight. If M becomes my main because of its compactness, having R is a waste for me.

For what it is, the M50 + 22 or 11-22 is a big boon in terms of cost vs performance. The only thing better in value is an SL2 with EF-S glass refurb on a sale, but, it can't do f/2 on the normal (EF-S 24mm f/2.8) and is only sensitive in the center AF point in low light hence why I tried the SL2 when I went back to ILC, and then within a week went to the M. Took nearly a month before I went to the R. There's tradeoffs that you have to swallow. If the R system was more complete with conservative glass, a lower end R already, it'd be an easier choice. Once again, it took me mounting that 22 all the time (and 32) for me to get the memo I should be thinking R + RF 35 and EF 50 f/1.4 adapted.

M might be a second system. Two FF sets are difficult to carry, but one R+RF lens and one M+EFM lens look okay, especially when M is accompanied with EFM 11-22.