Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the Canon RP the Barbie Doll of mirrorless?

Go to last post
That's why Canon and Nikon are so far ahead--they have more accessories to make money from.

marksee said:
The Barbie Doll was originally sold at an attractively low price so Mattel could sell expensive accessories to Barbie buyers after the purchase. Could Canon be aiming the RP toward the same marketing strategy? Selling into the line of accessories?
Click to expand...
 
Cato1040 said:
Thoughts R Us said:
pyla said:
Cato1040 said:
PhotoKhan said:
Sony users love to make comparisons between the A7's and the EOS R line, even going to such hilarious extents as comparing a 4 year-old offer with a newly introduced product.
Click to expand...
For the first phrase, the same can be said of Canon, Nikon, and other users. Users from every system will compare their cameras to those from other systems. Anyone making a purchasing decision should. If you're talking about the A7II, why is this hilarious? The A7II at $1000 is very comparable to the RP at $1300, especially with the native lineup in consideration, though it offers advantages other than just more lenses. If I were to consider this comparison hilarious, it would be because it's crazy how a 4 year old body really can stand up to a brand new camera. There are definitely people who would choose the A7II over the RP even if they were the same price. That being said, I consider this comparability (if that's a word) more unfortunate than hilarious.
Click to expand...
The A7II is not a good camera. It has poor ergonomics, poor single point AF, poor colour science and very very poor battery quality. Fototriper, a youtube vlogger, has the A7R2 (same battery as the A7II). On a recent trip to the very cold Canadian Rockies he went through 8 batteries.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I stand by what I said. It seems to me you are stating your opinion like it's a fact. The reality of it is that whether you like it or not, the A7II has its advantages over the RP and different people will prefer different cameras. You say the A7II's ergonomics are bad, but I prefer tilting screens to fully articulating screens (I don't vlog and rarely take selfies) and I don't like how a switch as important as an On/Off switch is on the left side of the RP (I often use my camera with one hand). Ergonomics can also depend on the lenses, and if one is looking for a small lens like the Sony 35mm f/2.8, they might choose the A7II over the RP for that reason. Ergonomics are subjective. You say the A7II has poor single point AF but that's relative depending on one's needs. The RP's AF will probably be better but photographers like landscape ones might not care as much. I was even able to use the original A7's AF for street photography though I am also glad to have the improved A7rII's AF now. You say it has poor colour science but many of us edit, and if the RP is like the 6DII, the A7II might outperform the RP in other areas like dynamic range and low light performance (we probably won't know until it's officially released), especially with in body image stabilization. You say the A7II has very very poor battery life but did you know the RP is rated to have an significantly worse one (though we'd have to wait and see practically what the battery life will be like)? I've also used the A7rII for days on vacation on the same battery as not everyone shoots in the cold. As you can see, saying the A7II is not a good camera with these arguments may mean the RP isn't a good camera either. I'd say they're both good cameras depending on the photographer. You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't state them like they are universally accepted. I don't like eggplant but I don't say it's bad or poor, I just say I prefer other vegetables (or is it a fruit? I'm not sure)...
Cato1040 said:
Yes, thank you for pointing this out. Because the A7III was such a big leap forward from the A7II, it caught everyone by surprise. People tend to forget that the A7II is a very mediocre camera, with the flaws you mention.

I would take an RP any day over an A7II.
Click to expand...
That is good for you and you are entitled to your opinion. But not everyone would do the same. I'd argue the RP is overall slightly better (minus native lens selection) than the A7II, but compared to the competition, it is also mediocre. For the price, I'd say their value is comparable.
Cato1040 said:
Cato1040 said:
Cato1040 said:
Cato1040 said:
They deludedly think Canon is competing with Sony when, in fact, Canon is just catering for their own market position, having quietly and calmly being preparing this approach for some years (...the M line was an important piece in the overall strategy...).

In one of my favorite movies, "Field of Dreams", they say: "Build it and they will come".

For Canon is more a case of "Build it and they will stay".

Since "they", a huge user base, have already been giving Canon the market lead for years and years, those who "will come" (...including those coming back while discovering how expensive it can be to hastily flowing with ever-turning tides...) will just be an added bonus.

PK
Click to expand...
Minus what I think you are meaning by "hilarious" (which I doubt was really the point of your post), I totally agree with you.

I'd say the RP is definitely geared towards keeping their DSLR customers over trying to attract others and they would be its main client base (these are my thoughts, feel free to disagree). It could also attract some new users but I think new users who would switch to the RF system may be more attracted to the R as it matches better with the lenses. It's a super smart move by Canon. Canon is already the biggest brand in the business so they don't have as much incentive to attract those from other systems and have more incentive to keep their own.
Click to expand...
Not just keeping exciting customers. It is going to attract many customers from other brands who dream of having a FF camera, but is out of their budget.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't see why you have to be so nasty about it. Different people find different things useful in a camera. I, for one, was completely uninterested in Sony ilcs before the a7iii came out. It is a great camera. But that is me, you can like what youi like--there is no reason at all to be so dismissive of other people stating what they want in a camera.
Cato1040 said:
I don't disagree. Many people bought the A7II when it dropped to $1000 for that same reason.
Cato1040 said:
In a shrinking camera market, I think both Canon and Nikon mainly look to sell to their existing base. But I do think where Canon will attract many new customers is those looking to enter the market for a dedicated camera for the first time and go beyond their smartphone.
Click to expand...
Due to brand power, Canon does often grab many looking to upgrade from their smartphones. I'd agree Nikon (at least so far) is the only one of the big three not to have an entry-level-priced option for full frame mirrorless, which could put it at a disadvantage. They seemed to take the opposite approach by releasing a more high-end body in the Z7 but somewhat more entry-level lenses. I find Canon's RF lenses, though currently very expensive, are also very exciting, especially the f/2 zoom and the potentially more compact 70-200mm f/2.8.
Click to expand...
 
PAntunes said:
pyla said:
Cato1040 said:
PhotoKhan said:
Sony users love to make comparisons between the A7's and the EOS R line, even going to such hilarious extents as comparing a 4 year-old offer with a newly introduced product.
Click to expand...
For the first phrase, the same can be said of Canon, Nikon, and other users. Users from every system will compare their cameras to those from other systems. Anyone making a purchasing decision should. If you're talking about the A7II, why is this hilarious? The A7II at $1000 is very comparable to the RP at $1300, especially with the native lineup in consideration, though it offers advantages other than just more lenses. If I were to consider this comparison hilarious, it would be because it's crazy how a 4 year old body really can stand up to a brand new camera. There are definitely people who would choose the A7II over the RP even if they were the same price. That being said, I consider this comparability (if that's a word) more unfortunate than hilarious.
Click to expand...
The A7II is not a good camera. It has poor ergonomics, poor single point AF, poor colour science and very very poor battery quality. Fototriper, a youtube vlogger, has the A7R2 (same battery as the A7II). On a recent trip to the very cold Canadian Rockies he went through 8 batteries.
Click to expand...
The RP has a smaller battery than the A7II. So how many batteries would that be?
PAntunes said:
PAntunes said:
PAntunes said:
They deludedly think Canon is competing with Sony when, in fact, Canon is just catering for their own market position, having quietly and calmly being preparing this approach for some years (...the M line was an important piece in the overall strategy...).

In one of my favorite movies, "Field of Dreams", they say: "Build it and they will come".

For Canon is more a case of "Build it and they will stay".

Since "they", a huge user base, have already been giving Canon the market lead for years and years, those who "will come" (...including those coming back while discovering how expensive it can be to hastily flowing with ever-turning tides...) will just be an added bonus.

PK
Click to expand...
Minus what I think you are meaning by "hilarious" (which I doubt was really the point of your post), I totally agree with you.

I'd say the RP is definitely geared towards keeping their DSLR customers over trying to attract others and they would be its main client base (these are my thoughts, feel free to disagree). It could also attract some new users but I think new users who would switch to the RF system may be more attracted to the R as it matches better with the lenses. It's a super smart move by Canon. Canon is already the biggest brand in the business so they don't have as much incentive to attract those from other systems and have more incentive to keep their own.
Click to expand...
Not just keeping exciting customers. It is going to attract many customers from other brands who dream of having a FF camera, but is out of their budget.
Click to expand...
What costumers of other brands? Who's the costumer from another brand that doesn't have a big budget and is going to buy a RP if they don't have canon lenses? As soon as you need to add a kit lens, you're in A7III territory. And the A7III is a much better camera.
And that's with the free adapter that canon is offering until March. After that, it's $100 more if you want to use EF lenses. And when you look at the new lenses from canon, not a single affordable kit lens. I really can't see who are those users from other brands that are gonna go for the RP.\
Click to expand...
Why are you assuming that all Canon aps-c owners own Canon FF glass? I fall in the group that this camera is targeted towards. When I looked at the cost of a full frame camera, it was always body plus lens. The RP+RF 24-105 falls within my targeted budget. And it is 1100 cheaper than the A7III+Sony 24-105. I am not saying that at 3300 dollars it is not worth the money. But that combo goes over my budget. But even if my budget was lower, I am still looking at around 1700 dollars with an EF 24-105 lens.
 
Why not use the electronics industry (printers as an example) or even the camera industry itself for comparison? The RP is similar to the original Rebel or 5D where Canon is making a certain class of body more affordable so that they can eventually sell lenses and peripherals and provide the customer with an upgrade path to sell even more expensive bodies and support items.
 
The RP is definitely Beaver Cleaver, the cute kid who makes waves in the neighborhood, but he doesn't quite have it all together. And the R is big brother Wally, who's still young but much more sophisticated than the Beav. When the high end R comes out, that'll be Mr. Cleaver.

And Sony is Eddie Haskell, the irritating kid down the street who thinks he has all the answers, but in reality he's a little off kilter.
 
Selene said:
Cato1040 said:
Thoughts R Us said:
pyla said:
Cato1040 said:
PhotoKhan said:
Sony users love to make comparisons between the A7's and the EOS R line, even going to such hilarious extents as comparing a 4 year-old offer with a newly introduced product.
Click to expand...
For the first phrase, the same can be said of Canon, Nikon, and other users. Users from every system will compare their cameras to those from other systems. Anyone making a purchasing decision should. If you're talking about the A7II, why is this hilarious? The A7II at $1000 is very comparable to the RP at $1300, especially with the native lineup in consideration, though it offers advantages other than just more lenses. If I were to consider this comparison hilarious, it would be because it's crazy how a 4 year old body really can stand up to a brand new camera. There are definitely people who would choose the A7II over the RP even if they were the same price. That being said, I consider this comparability (if that's a word) more unfortunate than hilarious.
Click to expand...
The A7II is not a good camera. It has poor ergonomics, poor single point AF, poor colour science and very very poor battery quality. Fototriper, a youtube vlogger, has the A7R2 (same battery as the A7II). On a recent trip to the very cold Canadian Rockies he went through 8 batteries.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I stand by what I said. It seems to me you are stating your opinion like it's a fact. The reality of it is that whether you like it or not, the A7II has its advantages over the RP and different people will prefer different cameras. You say the A7II's ergonomics are bad, but I prefer tilting screens to fully articulating screens (I don't vlog and rarely take selfies) and I don't like how a switch as important as an On/Off switch is on the left side of the RP (I often use my camera with one hand). Ergonomics can also depend on the lenses, and if one is looking for a small lens like the Sony 35mm f/2.8, they might choose the A7II over the RP for that reason. Ergonomics are subjective. You say the A7II has poor single point AF but that's relative depending on one's needs. The RP's AF will probably be better but photographers like landscape ones might not care as much. I was even able to use the original A7's AF for street photography though I am also glad to have the improved A7rII's AF now. You say it has poor colour science but many of us edit, and if the RP is like the 6DII, the A7II might outperform the RP in other areas like dynamic range and low light performance (we probably won't know until it's officially released), especially with in body image stabilization. You say the A7II has very very poor battery life but did you know the RP is rated to have an significantly worse one (though we'd have to wait and see practically what the battery life will be like)? I've also used the A7rII for days on vacation on the same battery as not everyone shoots in the cold. As you can see, saying the A7II is not a good camera with these arguments may mean the RP isn't a good camera either. I'd say they're both good cameras depending on the photographer. You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't state them like they are universally accepted. I don't like eggplant but I don't say it's bad or poor, I just say I prefer other vegetables (or is it a fruit? I'm not sure)...
Selene said:
Yes, thank you for pointing this out. Because the A7III was such a big leap forward from the A7II, it caught everyone by surprise. People tend to forget that the A7II is a very mediocre camera, with the flaws you mention.

I would take an RP any day over an A7II.
Click to expand...
That is good for you and you are entitled to your opinion. But not everyone would do the same. I'd argue the RP is overall slightly better (minus native lens selection) than the A7II, but compared to the competition, it is also mediocre. For the price, I'd say their value is comparable.
Selene said:
Selene said:
Selene said:
Selene said:
They deludedly think Canon is competing with Sony when, in fact, Canon is just catering for their own market position, having quietly and calmly being preparing this approach for some years (...the M line was an important piece in the overall strategy...).

In one of my favorite movies, "Field of Dreams", they say: "Build it and they will come".

For Canon is more a case of "Build it and they will stay".

Since "they", a huge user base, have already been giving Canon the market lead for years and years, those who "will come" (...including those coming back while discovering how expensive it can be to hastily flowing with ever-turning tides...) will just be an added bonus.

PK
Click to expand...
Minus what I think you are meaning by "hilarious" (which I doubt was really the point of your post), I totally agree with you.

I'd say the RP is definitely geared towards keeping their DSLR customers over trying to attract others and they would be its main client base (these are my thoughts, feel free to disagree). It could also attract some new users but I think new users who would switch to the RF system may be more attracted to the R as it matches better with the lenses. It's a super smart move by Canon. Canon is already the biggest brand in the business so they don't have as much incentive to attract those from other systems and have more incentive to keep their own.
Click to expand...
Not just keeping exciting customers. It is going to attract many customers from other brands who dream of having a FF camera, but is out of their budget.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't see why you have to be so nasty about it. Different people find different things useful in a camera. I, for one, was completely uninterested in Sony ilcs before the a7iii came out. It is a great camera. But that is me, you can like what youi like--there is no reason at all to be so dismissive of other people stating what they want in a camera.
Click to expand...
??????????????? How am I being nasty by saying that people from other brands would also be interested in upgrading to a the RP?
Selene said:
Selene said:
I don't disagree. Many people bought the A7II when it dropped to $1000 for that same reason.
Selene said:
In a shrinking camera market, I think both Canon and Nikon mainly look to sell to their existing base. But I do think where Canon will attract many new customers is those looking to enter the market for a dedicated camera for the first time and go beyond their smartphone.
Click to expand...
Due to brand power, Canon does often grab many looking to upgrade from their smartphones. I'd agree Nikon (at least so far) is the only one of the big three not to have an entry-level-priced option for full frame mirrorless, which could put it at a disadvantage. They seemed to take the opposite approach by releasing a more high-end body in the Z7 but somewhat more entry-level lenses. I find Canon's RF lenses, though currently very expensive, are also very exciting, especially the f/2 zoom and the potentially more compact 70-200mm f/2.8.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
pyla said:
PAntunes said:
pyla said:
Cato1040 said:
PhotoKhan said:
Sony users love to make comparisons between the A7's and the EOS R line, even going to such hilarious extents as comparing a 4 year-old offer with a newly introduced product.
Click to expand...
For the first phrase, the same can be said of Canon, Nikon, and other users. Users from every system will compare their cameras to those from other systems. Anyone making a purchasing decision should. If you're talking about the A7II, why is this hilarious? The A7II at $1000 is very comparable to the RP at $1300, especially with the native lineup in consideration, though it offers advantages other than just more lenses. If I were to consider this comparison hilarious, it would be because it's crazy how a 4 year old body really can stand up to a brand new camera. There are definitely people who would choose the A7II over the RP even if they were the same price. That being said, I consider this comparability (if that's a word) more unfortunate than hilarious.
Click to expand...
The A7II is not a good camera. It has poor ergonomics, poor single point AF, poor colour science and very very poor battery quality. Fototriper, a youtube vlogger, has the A7R2 (same battery as the A7II). On a recent trip to the very cold Canadian Rockies he went through 8 batteries.
Click to expand...
The RP has a smaller battery than the A7II. So how many batteries would that be?
pyla said:
pyla said:
pyla said:
They deludedly think Canon is competing with Sony when, in fact, Canon is just catering for their own market position, having quietly and calmly being preparing this approach for some years (...the M line was an important piece in the overall strategy...).

In one of my favorite movies, "Field of Dreams", they say: "Build it and they will come".

For Canon is more a case of "Build it and they will stay".

Since "they", a huge user base, have already been giving Canon the market lead for years and years, those who "will come" (...including those coming back while discovering how expensive it can be to hastily flowing with ever-turning tides...) will just be an added bonus.

PK
Click to expand...
Minus what I think you are meaning by "hilarious" (which I doubt was really the point of your post), I totally agree with you.

I'd say the RP is definitely geared towards keeping their DSLR customers over trying to attract others and they would be its main client base (these are my thoughts, feel free to disagree). It could also attract some new users but I think new users who would switch to the RF system may be more attracted to the R as it matches better with the lenses. It's a super smart move by Canon. Canon is already the biggest brand in the business so they don't have as much incentive to attract those from other systems and have more incentive to keep their own.
Click to expand...
Not just keeping exciting customers. It is going to attract many customers from other brands who dream of having a FF camera, but is out of their budget.
Click to expand...
What costumers of other brands? Who's the costumer from another brand that doesn't have a big budget and is going to buy a RP if they don't have canon lenses? As soon as you need to add a kit lens, you're in A7III territory. And the A7III is a much better camera.
And that's with the free adapter that canon is offering until March. After that, it's $100 more if you want to use EF lenses. And when you look at the new lenses from canon, not a single affordable kit lens. I really can't see who are those users from other brands that are gonna go for the RP.\
Click to expand...
Why are you assuming that all Canon aps-c owners own Canon FF glass? I fall in the group that this camera is targeted towards. When I looked at the cost of a full frame camera, it was always body plus lens. The RP+RF 24-105 falls within my targeted budget. And it is 1100 cheaper than the A7III+Sony 24-105. I am not saying that at 3300 dollars it is not worth the money. But that combo goes over my budget. But even if my budget was lower, I am still looking at around 1700 dollars with an EF 24-105 lens.
Click to expand...
So there's not other combination that would get you a FF mirrorless camera with a 24-105 lens for the same money?
 
lawny13 said:
Cato1040 said:
lawny13 said:
Cato1040 said:
Thoughts R Us said:
pyla said:
Cato1040 said:
PhotoKhan said:
Sony users love to make comparisons between the A7's and the EOS R line, even going to such hilarious extents as comparing a 4 year-old offer with a newly introduced product.
Click to expand...
For the first phrase, the same can be said of Canon, Nikon, and other users. Users from every system will compare their cameras to those from other systems. Anyone making a purchasing decision should. If you're talking about the A7II, why is this hilarious? The A7II at $1000 is very comparable to the RP at $1300, especially with the native lineup in consideration, though it offers advantages other than just more lenses. If I were to consider this comparison hilarious, it would be because it's crazy how a 4 year old body really can stand up to a brand new camera. There are definitely people who would choose the A7II over the RP even if they were the same price. That being said, I consider this comparability (if that's a word) more unfortunate than hilarious.
Click to expand...
The A7II is not a good camera. It has poor ergonomics, poor single point AF, poor colour science and very very poor battery quality. Fototriper, a youtube vlogger, has the A7R2 (same battery as the A7II). On a recent trip to the very cold Canadian Rockies he went through 8 batteries.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I stand by what I said. It seems to me you are stating your opinion like it's a fact. The reality of it is that whether you like it or not, the A7II has its advantages over the RP and different people will prefer different cameras. You say the A7II's ergonomics are bad, but I prefer tilting screens to fully articulating screens (I don't vlog and rarely take selfies) and I don't like how a switch as important as an On/Off switch is on the left side of the RP (I often use my camera with one hand). Ergonomics can also depend on the lenses, and if one is looking for a small lens like the Sony 35mm f/2.8, they might choose the A7II over the RP for that reason. Ergonomics are subjective. You say the A7II has poor single point AF but that's relative depending on one's needs. The RP's AF will probably be better but photographers like landscape ones might not care as much. I was even able to use the original A7's AF for street photography though I am also glad to have the improved A7rII's AF now. You say it has poor colour science but many of us edit, and if the RP is like the 6DII, the A7II might outperform the RP in other areas like dynamic range and low light performance (we probably won't know until it's officially released), especially with in body image stabilization. You say the A7II has very very poor battery life but did you know the RP is rated to have an significantly worse one (though we'd have to wait and see practically what the battery life will be like)? I've also used the A7rII for days on vacation on the same battery as not everyone shoots in the cold. As you can see, saying the A7II is not a good camera with these arguments may mean the RP isn't a good camera either. I'd say they're both good cameras depending on the photographer. You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't state them like they are universally accepted. I don't like eggplant but I don't say it's bad or poor, I just say I prefer other vegetables (or is it a fruit? I'm not sure)...
Click to expand...
I owned the A7II, and now the EOS R (after the A7III). I shot with the A7II for years, and I came to "learn to live with it", and by doing so I could recognize when not to bother taking it out of the bag and avoid fouling my mood.
And that is the point... the A7II was and is a frustrating camera, and that is why the RP is generally better than it hands down. Unless of course you are a landscape photographer looking for the best DR at low ISO. But that is about it.

I read through your comments and I know what you are trying to say, but no man. The RP is a better camera as a matter of fact, and that is simply because it isn't just about the final image, but rather the whole experience, and that is what this price segment is about. Why do you think canon can constantly spit out cameras that people say are underspecced and yet come out on top. Every single reviewer that complained about the R has come back to claim that they enjoy the heck out of it? Many many many times I found myself cursing at the A7II and wanting to toss that thing out the window.
To me, as a design engineer, an a gear head, I can confidently say that especially for the regular consumer all gear (camera in this case) should have a certain threshold of things that they do well in order to leave a lasting positive impression.

1. Ease of use
2. A camera should do one shot, or single shot or whatever you want to call it, AF well, without the user having to fight the camera
3. Good feel in hand
4. Easy transfer of images and other integration features
5. Short learning curve to understanding how the camera behaves.
6. Consistent/predictable behaviour
Click to expand...
I could argue that many of these are subjective but in general, I would agree that, based on handling the R, the RP will probably (though not definetely) beat the A7II in most of these areas. That being said, not everyone cares as much about a lasting impression just based on the experience of using it. You may prioritize this but others may consider this, but may prioritize other factors.
Click to expand...
As I plainly mentioned... considering the audience these cameras would be aimed at the RP is better.
Let me put is this way. I have experience with the A7II, the A7RII, the A7III and the EOS R. I owned the A7III from when it came out, and the A7II for about 3 years, so I know what I am talking about. The A7II is so bad compared to the rest, that I advice every single person considering it to save up, and skip it all together. If you want a sony just get the A7III. The improvements of the mk3 over the mk2 is SO BIG that even if it cost 2500 instead of 2k I would still advice saving up and skipping the A7II.

Basically, if you are a regular consumer the EOS RP will simply give you a way way way more enjoyable experience. If you are experienced and know your tech, then going for the A7III over the RP and the A7II would be the logical choice. Only if you happen to not be able to swing the money, should one even consider the A7II, but even then... get the A7III second hand.
Click to expand...
There isn't just one audience, and we may have slightly different ideas of the main audience anyway. For many people, shelling out $1000 for a camera is already a push. Saving up another $1000 (or even $600 for used) is not that feasible. Not everyone has the luxury to just save up hundreds of dollars for a better camera, no matter how much better it is. You have an EOS R, which leads me to believe your budget isn't that limited (though I might be wrong).

That being said, I too agree that the A7RII is a huge step up over the A7II mainly due to that AF performance, and the A7III is a huge improvement too. I paid $1200 for a used A7RII a year ago. I'd love to get the A7III but spending a few hundred dollars to upgrade isn't worth it right now. I'll wait until the price in the used market drops so I won't have to pay as much of a difference if at all. So is the price difference between the A7II and A7III worth it? To many (including me) yes. But that doesn't mean it's affordable or worth it to everyone. The price of a brand new Chevy Camera is reasonable. I still can't afford it.
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
In general, sony cameras are not easy to use right out of the box. This affects the initial impressions of consumers, both when they purchase a camera and when they try it out in the shop. Ever pick up a sony camera for the first time in the store who's settings has been changed, and try to figure out how it works?
Click to expand...
Yes, I was fine. I know Sonys are known to have had a bad menu system but maybe I'm just different, but having owned and used Canon, Nikon, and Sony ILCs, I didn't find it much worse and eventually found it to be better in the long run as it had tons of customizability and dials. I especially liked the fn menu (though I know many cameras have a similar quick menu now).
Click to expand...
Read comment above. I am talking about the target buyers for these price points.
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
Canon does those 6 things up there very very well. Everything beyond those 4 points is icing on the cake. Sony does a lot of icing, but it wasn't till the mk3 that they did way better on those 4 points. Even so, menus, operation, and getting to grips with how the camera works in a short amount of time plays a major role in making the A7III a little complicated for most regular consumers, more so when it comes to the A7II.
When will the A7II revert to CDAF, forcing you to stop what you are doing, and switching to single shot mode to avoid that CDAF hunting? How do you move that single point around quickly, without a joystick and with a very very laggy/crappy touch drag implementation? These things is something that RP will beat the A7II in hands down. So the only real thing the A7II has going for it is the better DR at lower ISOs.
Click to expand...
That's not true as you will state below.
lawny13 said:
As for the lens line up. Yep, sony had 5 years head start, but most of sony lenses are kinda over priced, and I just don't trust sony with them. Look up issues with field curvature, and copy variation, and QC problems and you will see what I mean. With the RP on the other hand, with the adapter, every single consumer out there is open to many many very good second hand EF lenses. The RF lenses great, and 6-8 more will be available by the end of this year. The 35 mm you mentioned... sorry dude, I would rather pay 550 for a RF 35 f1.8 IS which is already well regarded, than 750 for a 35 f2.8. A7II + 35 f2.8 might be smaller than the RP + RF 35 f1.8, but they would cost about the same, and the later is maybe even lighter, and no matter which you choose either are small enough to be pocket-able. Canon is just getting started, and if they get faster read out with the DPAF, and IBIS in the next versions of their RF cameras I would choose them over sony any day.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion on lenses. Not everyone has the same standards as you. In fact, I'd argue most don't, especially at this budget. In general, reviews I read for Sony lenses are great ones. People pay for quality and though I'd agree many are overpriced, a decent amount of their lenses get reviewed as the best in their category. The same can be said about RF lenses which I don't argue are amazing. How about you replace the Sony 35mm f/2.8 for the Samyang/Rokinon 35mm f/2.8? That lens paired with the A7II is pretty much the same price as the RP without a lens and isn't much bigger either. Other lenses that could be selling factors are the 50mm f/1.8, 28mm f/2, Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f/2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, 50mm f/2.8 Macro, 85mm f/1.8, Samyang/Rokinon 35mm f/1.4, Samyang/Rokinon 50mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4, and I could keep going. The argument for future lenses is usable, but some people want to take photos now, not years from now... Many people choose Fujifilm over Sony in the APS-C market because of lens selection. It's not a factor to be disregarded. Again, it depends on the user though. Not everyone will need those lenses I mentioned, but many also do, especially that Tamron f/2.8 standard zoom.
Click to expand...
If you go GM, then you might be correct. The tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a good lens, had it. But when it comes to advising people I generally tell them to suck it up and go zeiss.
Click to expand...
Many of the people looking at the A7II or RP aren't going to be able to afford Zeiss glass. Even if they could, they might not care about the difference.
lawny13 said:
I mean check this out. What most people considering the A7II would be looking at are not exactly GM type lenses. The 24-70f4... MEH!! Not worth the money you pay for it. It isn't too far off in IQ compared to the kit 28-70, and that is not bad but doesn't do the sensor any justice. It wasn't basically till the 85 f1.8 and the tamron that gave something I would say is actually worth my money.
Click to expand...
IMO, does Sony have some not so great lenses? Yes (I agree the 24-70 isn't great, despite its Zeiss badge). IMO, do they have many great lenses? Yes (with or without G, GM, or Zeiss badges). Since your standards are Zeiss glass, I think we'll have very different opinions on this, which is fine, we can disagree.
lawny13 said:
You talk about reviews, but those items are usually provided to the reviewers. Of course sony will give out the best of any batch. Before I invest in anything, I read user reviews, from the best to the worse. And the amount of things I have read about QC, especially the earlier non-GM lenses gave me pause. I myself went through several copies of lenses before I just said no... not worth the hassle and just went zeiss. The "budget" 50 has focusing issues, and it most definitely is not budget compared to the competition. Heck I read that the 24 GM was like the best of the best... till you read reports of people going through multiple copies due to field curvature.

So... I fully admit that sony does produce some quality glass. But they did poorly at the beginning, and at the beginning it was those non GM lenses they produced. And as usual most manufacturers don't go back to fix those lenses till way way later. So you generally go expensive and massive on the lenses or pay a premium for something which should be better.
Click to expand...
When did I say I was talking about professional reviewers who get items given to them? Did I say that or did you assume that? I just went on B&H and filtered it down to full frame autofocusing lenses for the Sony E mount. Of 91 results, 6 have ratings below 4 stars and none are below 3 stars. On the other hand, 36 have 5 stars ratings. Regarding quality control, one can avoid that issue by inspecting the lens before buying it anyway (whether new or used). Again, due to your Zeiss standards, we probably have different opinions on what's acceptable.
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
Yes, thank you for pointing this out. Because the A7III was such a big leap forward from the A7II, it caught everyone by surprise. People tend to forget that the A7II is a very mediocre camera, with the flaws you mention.

I would take an RP any day over an A7II.
Click to expand...
That is good for you and you are entitled to your opinion. But not everyone would do the same. I'd argue the RP is overall slightly better (minus native lens selection) than the A7II, but compared to the competition, it is also mediocre. For the price, I'd say their value is comparable.
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
lawny13 said:
They deludedly think Canon is competing with Sony when, in fact, Canon is just catering for their own market position, having quietly and calmly being preparing this approach for some years (...the M line was an important piece in the overall strategy...).

In one of my favorite movies, "Field of Dreams", they say: "Build it and they will come".

For Canon is more a case of "Build it and they will stay".

Since "they", a huge user base, have already been giving Canon the market lead for years and years, those who "will come" (...including those coming back while discovering how expensive it can be to hastily flowing with ever-turning tides...) will just be an added bonus.

PK
Click to expand...
Minus what I think you are meaning by "hilarious" (which I doubt was really the point of your post), I totally agree with you.

I'd say the RP is definitely geared towards keeping their DSLR customers over trying to attract others and they would be its main client base (these are my thoughts, feel free to disagree). It could also attract some new users but I think new users who would switch to the RF system may be more attracted to the R as it matches better with the lenses. It's a super smart move by Canon. Canon is already the biggest brand in the business so they don't have as much incentive to attract those from other systems and have more incentive to keep their own.
Click to expand...
Not just keeping exciting customers. It is going to attract many customers from other brands who dream of having a FF camera, but is out of their budget.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. Many people bought the A7II when it dropped to $1000 for that same reason.
lawny13 said:
In a shrinking camera market, I think both Canon and Nikon mainly look to sell to their existing base. But I do think where Canon will attract many new customers is those looking to enter the market for a dedicated camera for the first time and go beyond their smartphone.
Click to expand...
Due to brand power, Canon does often grab many looking to upgrade from their smartphones. I'd agree Nikon (at least so far) is the only one of the big three not to have an entry-level-priced option for full frame mirrorless, which could put it at a disadvantage. They seemed to take the opposite approach by releasing a more high-end body in the Z7 but somewhat more entry-level lenses. I find Canon's RF lenses, though currently very expensive, are also very exciting, especially the f/2 zoom and the potentially more compact 70-200mm f/2.8.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Overall, you do make fair points but again, the thing is that it depends on the user. There are definetely many points that go towards the RP but cost and native lens selection (I hope you don't disagree that these are minor factors) are considerations for the A7II. I can make even more arguments for the RP and for the A7II but I won't get into them as my main point is that they both have their pros and cons and therefore may be better for different people. Remember, the A7II and RP are arguably geared more towards people on a tight budget who want full frame performance and also want the advantages mirrorless had to offer. Different users may choose different cameras.
Click to expand...
As I said before... better to save up and get a good condition second hand A7III than the A7II. Native lens selection matters to sony users because adapted lens behavior is a bit mess. One needs to go hunting for the latest data about performance etc. I have adapted several EF lenses to the R, and they all consistently behave like they do on DSLR bodies or better. Sure I can get a native RF 100 L macro when it comes out, but WHY? I got the EF 100 L f2.8 macro for $400 in mint condition with a 1 year guarantee. The RF version would likely be 1k and would probably just be quieter. The second hand market will make up that price difference between the RP and A7II in 1-2 lens purchases.
But again... I am not against sony per say. But that A7II was a motivation killer for a hobbiest. Most casual shooters will come across times when they want to shoot in low light situations, and trying that with the A7II is just plain frustrating. I could never get my kids in focus on time. I just never took it out for shooting at any evening events, and that was just sad. The 6D would have been way better for that. And that says something. If you can't get focus to get the shot, who cares how much DR you have? Many many consumers will wan a camera at this price point to be able to capture those memories. I can find the A7III for 1600 used. That extra 600 is very very much worth it. The difference between the mk2 and mk3 is night and day.
Click to expand...
I think where we disagree is one what's acceptable for the money. I personally can't afford a Canon R so I think I'm in a different customer category than you. For years, I was using a $400 A7 with a $200 50mm f/1.8 and was very happy with it. You also need to remember that if you put a take a used A7III price into account, you also need to take a used A7II price into account, which would then go down to $650 making the A7III still about $1000 more expensive. The A7III and RP are also newer so less likely to be found used for cheap.

Standards are different and that's fine. I'm not arguing that the A7II can or cannot be acceptable to you. The reason this came up in the first place is that I disagreed with someone who expressed that it's completely unreasonable for the A7II to be considered by any photographer alongside the Canon RP.

Please remember, everyone has different budgets, standards, desires, history, and abilities that will lead to there being different 'best cameras' for different people.
 
When my wife was young she had just one Barbie, which her mother made outfits for (no store-bought accessories). She also never got the Barbie Camper, something that seems to haunt her to this day. Not sure where I'm going with this, but I just hope the RP doesn't leave a similar trail of accessory-less disappointment in its wake.
 
"We will strive to improve total profitability by expanding sales of the full-frame model like the EOS R which will lead to expanded sales of lenses that have high profitability."

Toshizo Tanaka, Canon Executive Vice President & CFO

And if you look at Canon's press release for the RP, the official kit lens for that camera is an L.
 
Last edited:
Paul B Jones said:
When my wife was young she had just one Barbie, which her mother made outfits for (no store-bought accessories). She also never got the Barbie Camper, something that seems to haunt her to this day. Not sure where I'm going with this, but I just hope the RP doesn't leave a similar trail of accessory-less disappointment in its wake.
Click to expand...
 
marksee said:
The Barbie Doll was originally sold at an attractively low price so Mattel could sell expensive accessories to Barbie buyers after the purchase. Could Canon be aiming the RP toward the same marketing strategy? Selling into the line of accessories?
Click to expand...
Seems to be made of similar material as a Barbie so yes. But pricing on the camera, even costlier ones is the tip of the iceberg as really good lenses will set you back considerably more, even a small collection. Budget FF cameras are like speeding tickets. The actual ticket may be a couple hundred bucks, but the subsequent insurance increases (the lenses) cost much more over time.
 
Paul B Jones said:
When my wife was young she had just one Barbie, which her mother made outfits for (no store-bought accessories). She also never got the Barbie Camper, something that seems to haunt her to this day. Not sure where I'm going with this, but I just hope the RP doesn't leave a similar trail of accessory-less disappointment in its wake.
Click to expand...
...leave anyone with any body image challenges. :-P
 
Paul B Jones said:
When my wife was young she had just one Barbie, which her mother made outfits for (no store-bought accessories). She also never got the Barbie Camper, something that seems to haunt her to this day. Not sure where I'm going with this, but I just hope the RP doesn't leave a similar trail of accessory-less disappointment in its wake.
Click to expand...
In the future we will 3D print accessories like your mother in law created for the Barbie!
 
Thoughts R Us said:
Battersea said:
Thoughts R Us said:
walter g1 said:
walter g1 said:
marksee said:
The Barbie Doll was originally sold at an attractively low price so Mattel could sell expensive accessories to Barbie buyers after the purchase. Could Canon be aiming the RP toward the same marketing strategy? Selling into the line of accessories?
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

Yes; the grip and ef adapter come free but only thru the end of March. So they do expect to sell both to many people that choose the RP. They also expect this to be the entrance to the RF system and hope to sell RF lenses and higher end bodies, and accessories to these customers over time.

No, will be in the next post.
Click to expand...
No; Canon's main goal is market share. They want to take over the number one spot from Sony.

They were so late to the game that their is no easy way to do this. Their only possible chance is to create a new market that Sony doesn't have a new camera in. You can still buy the A7ii new but it's and older design.

So that is why the RP is priced the way it is.

Back to your analogy, they are trying to do both. Make their main profits on accesories, and upgrades, but I think market share is more important to them right now.
Click to expand...
I would take it a step further though. Why is market share important? Because it leads to other sales of lenses, accessories, and future camera bodies.

So yes, I do think the RP is designed to attract people into the R system, hoping to lead to purchases of other items, both now and in the future.
Click to expand...
This is a critical time for FF market share. With several systems now avai and a drastically shrinking camera market. The coming years could determine the survivors. Canon intends to survive.
Click to expand...
I agree. But the point that I wanted to make is that market share and sales of related products are interconnected. Market share only has meaning because of the assumption that at some point one can monetize that into profits. I can give away a product and have great market share, but obviously won't have a sustainable business model.

So yes the RP is meant to gobble up some market share, but also to lead to sales of other products in the short term and long term. They go together.
Click to expand...
Right, I fully agree.
 
Nikon's D600/610 being the cheapest FF DSLR apparently did not sell in the numbers the more expensive D750 did, so I wonder if Canon expects this inexpensive model to sell like the R, or substantially out-sell it? It hinges on luring more people away from APS or even m4/3rds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top