EOS RP Q&A: My take on the questions and answers

Selene wrote:

There is hiking and hiking. I have used an rx100 on large peaks. I prefer the ff frame in landscape, street, and probably even people shots more generally is why I haven't seriously considered those other cameras. With birds and whales the aps-c is not bad because it is rare for me to want the larger frame. I did get the rf 35 and have been hiking with the sony a7riii and the sony 24-105. I think the RF version will be better, but I could be wrong.

You know what they say about 2 cents... Not worth a lot. However, I'll proceed, like most do on forum to offer it. Feel free to ignore as it sounds like you've got your mind made up on the RP

I've found everything sub-APS-C just doesn't deliver "good enough" image quality. RX100, all 6 of them, included.

However, I have found the EOS M series and G1X III do on the other hand. The differences are perhaps slight between a good 1" like the RX100 or G7X and the APS-C G1X III, but, they're certainly there and it tilts my pendulum (maybe not necessarily yours) just over the edge to good enough. The difference is even wider when say using a modern EOS M like the M100, M5, M6, or M50 with say a EF-M prime lens (22/2, 32/1.4 or 28/3.5), or, that 11-22 which gets rave reviews for good reason. It's stellar.

I'm considering working on David and Goliath posts, that is a David post for the EOS M folks, and a Goliath post for the R folks to demonstrate just what comes out of both platforms from the same OP (as I have my own skill level and shooting style so that it's a true apples to oranges comparison). Each is very capable. But, each has very different size, weight, price and low-light/DoF/"sheer IQ" capability.

Anyone that says hiking, should seriously consider a good APS-C in my book. Be it G1X III or EOS M series. You're going to get much better results than the RX100 with something with a bigger sensor. Pictures say a thousand words at the end of the day and I noted I like both what I get/got off those systems a heck of a lot more than the samples or what I got off the RX100 III.

The EOS M system by contrast you never blink about bulk, but, it has tradeoffs in image quality depending on what you're doing, particularly low light and portraiture.

The G1X III delivers about the same IQ, but, with a fixed zoom lens. It is however quite a bit more capable then the RX100 as even Roger C noted it should when he was considering his latest point and shoot. A quick demonstration using DPR's own review...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-iii-review/5

Go down to the compact lens assessment and run the RX100 III against it. Be sure when you make changes though that you match wide open for wide open, etc. Also, beware, it would appear their tool uses RAW data even though it's listed JPEG; I've noted some CA on behalf of the G1X III (which shouldn't appear in JPEG due to correction), but, in same scenes as that CA (24mm wide open on the face of the Asian woman), the G1X III is handing the RX100 III it's you know with contrast and detail. It's not even a fair fight. Try the dollar bill at 70mm @ f/5.6 on both, the G1X III wins again both on the wide and long ends against the RX100 III/IV/V/VA lens.

(Edit) I made a thread on the Powershot forum on the matter comparing the G1X III against the RX100 III, G7X and LX100, I'm sure that bunch will banter it:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4369977

The EOS RP (and R for that matter) does represent a sort of middle ground for full frame image quality and weight reduction, depending upon your kit combination, that last part is the catch.

DPR's take on it is correct. The RP is small, until you add the lens. However, as I mentioned that's not to say there isn't lots of lenses you can add that make a lot of sense, even with the adapter.

Obviously the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM is an excellent choice. I suspect the RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 IS STM will also double as it's outdoor brother if you will where the RF 35 is good for indoors/low light/street/environmental portraits the 24-240 should do sports, outdoor events, etc. I might also mention the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, 50mm f/1.8 STM, 85mm f/1.8 USM, 50mm f/1.4 USM, 35mm f/2 IS USM either adapt well or should adapt well. I've found the 17-40 f/L and 16-35 f/4L adapt well too as those aren't "too much" to tilt my pendulum for acceptable total package bulk. I have found 100-400 telephotos become too bulky in my book, and even my 70-300 IS II I put up with since I want a telephoto option. I did prefer the bulk of the 70-300 DO, but, it was a compromise of sorts so I opted not to keep it. I'd like to see Canon do a native RF telephoto lens that's around the same size as the 70-300 DO, but, maintain around 700g or less as that's where the tipping point kicks in for me on the R.

Just my 2 cents...