Canon declare Low End FF (PRICE WAR), Nikon Sony respond? APS-C squeeze

Tried a73 in store again and was surprised to find the eye af just not that great despite thr reviews.

Was able to handle the EOS rp body but there was no lense or converyerc. However my concern is that eos rp eye af < Sony a73 eye af. So aside from price this body may not have what I want

Classic_Man said:

Tried a73 in store again and was surprised to find the eye af just not that great despite thr reviews.

Was able to handle the EOS rp body but there was no lense or converyerc. However my concern is that eos rp eye af < Sony a73 eye af. So aside from price this body may not have what I want

Click to expand...

Odds are very high you didn't know what the hell you were doing. A7M3 Eye AF-C is top notch.

Daft Punk said:

DarnGoodPhotos said:

Nonsense, that's why I said "m4/3 is noisier than full frame,"

Of course there are many situations where full Rame does not provide a low light advantage. Shooting at f1.4 in low light makes gives you such a shallow depth of field that you often have to stop down to more of the scene in focus; in this case the noise between m4/3 f1.4 and full frame f2.8 is the same.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting at the same ISO the point you made is partially true. But it ignores reality.

With an Olympus EM1 mk2 you have 5 stops of IBIS. With a EM1 X you have 7 stops of IBIS.

200 ISO on the Olympus is going to give you at least equal IQ and DRO to a 6DII or EOS R/ RP at 800 ISO. If you take the Canon above 800 ISO, the M4.3 Oly will be superior.

There will be times when the better IBIS of the Oly will achieve this. Shutter speed is therefore a factor of course as will be the widest aperture of the lens you are using.

But my point is that saying "m4/3 is noisier than full frame" is not entirely correct , it really depends on various factors.

Click to expand...

You’re still limited to comparing with Canon, every other manufacturer puts M4/3 to shame and it won’t be long before Canon catches up.

9VIII said:

Daft Punk said:

DarnGoodPhotos said:

Nonsense, that's why I said "m4/3 is noisier than full frame,"

Of course there are many situations where full Rame does not provide a low light advantage. Shooting at f1.4 in low light makes gives you such a shallow depth of field that you often have to stop down to more of the scene in focus; in this case the noise between m4/3 f1.4 and full frame f2.8 is the same.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting at the same ISO the point you made is partially true. But it ignores reality.

With an Olympus EM1 mk2 you have 5 stops of IBIS. With a EM1 X you have 7 stops of IBIS.

200 ISO on the Olympus is going to give you at least equal IQ and DRO to a 6DII or EOS R/ RP at 800 ISO. If you take the Canon above 800 ISO, the M4.3 Oly will be superior.

There will be times when the better IBIS of the Oly will achieve this. Shutter speed is therefore a factor of course as will be the widest aperture of the lens you are using.

But my point is that saying "m4/3 is noisier than full frame" is not entirely correct , it really depends on various factors.

Click to expand...

You’re still limited to comparing with Canon, every other manufacturer puts M4/3 to shame and it won’t be long before Canon catches up.

Click to expand...

As someone who has cameras from all the major manufacturers ( i only lack Panasonic and Leica ) i have to say your statement is simply incorrect.

There are times when my FF Sony is the best option. There are times when my Oly rig is best because of the IBIS and small tele lenses. Blanket statements like yours just reveal ignorance.

UIKEYINPUTDOWNARROW> Daft Punk wrote:

Daft Punk said:

9VIII said:

Daft Punk said:

DarnGoodPhotos said:

Nonsense, that's why I said "m4/3 is noisier than full frame,"

Of course there are many situations where full Rame does not provide a low light advantage. Shooting at f1.4 in low light makes gives you such a shallow depth of field that you often have to stop down to more of the scene in focus; in this case the noise between m4/3 f1.4 and full frame f2.8 is the same.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting at the same ISO the point you made is partially true. But it ignores reality.

With an Olympus EM1 mk2 you have 5 stops of IBIS. With a EM1 X you have 7 stops of IBIS.

200 ISO on the Olympus is going to give you at least equal IQ and DRO to a 6DII or EOS R/ RP at 800 ISO. If you take the Canon above 800 ISO, the M4.3 Oly will be superior.

There will be times when the better IBIS of the Oly will achieve this. Shutter speed is therefore a factor of course as will be the widest aperture of the lens you are using.

But my point is that saying "m4/3 is noisier than full frame" is not entirely correct , it really depends on various factors.

Click to expand...

You’re still limited to comparing with Canon, every other manufacturer puts M4/3 to shame and it won’t be long before Canon catches up.

Click to expand...

As someone who has cameras from all the major manufacturers ( i only lack Panasonic and Leica ) i have to say your statement is simply incorrect.

There are times when my FF Sony is the best option. There are times when my Oly rig is best because of the IBIS and small tele lenses. Blanket statements like yours just reveal ignorance.

Click to expand...

Right, Olympus has a slight advantage in IBIS performance and that’s the entire justification for their system right now. Give it a year.

9VIII said:

UIKEYINPUTDOWNARROW> Daft Punk wrote:

9VIII said:

9VIII said:

Daft Punk said:

DarnGoodPhotos said:

Nonsense, that's why I said "m4/3 is noisier than full frame,"

Of course there are many situations where full Rame does not provide a low light advantage. Shooting at f1.4 in low light makes gives you such a shallow depth of field that you often have to stop down to more of the scene in focus; in this case the noise between m4/3 f1.4 and full frame f2.8 is the same.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting at the same ISO the point you made is partially true. But it ignores reality.

With an Olympus EM1 mk2 you have 5 stops of IBIS. With a EM1 X you have 7 stops of IBIS.

200 ISO on the Olympus is going to give you at least equal IQ and DRO to a 6DII or EOS R/ RP at 800 ISO. If you take the Canon above 800 ISO, the M4.3 Oly will be superior.

There will be times when the better IBIS of the Oly will achieve this. Shutter speed is therefore a factor of course as will be the widest aperture of the lens you are using.

But my point is that saying "m4/3 is noisier than full frame" is not entirely correct , it really depends on various factors.

Click to expand...

You’re still limited to comparing with Canon, every other manufacturer puts M4/3 to shame and it won’t be long before Canon catches up.

Click to expand...

As someone who has cameras from all the major manufacturers ( i only lack Panasonic and Leica ) i have to say your statement is simply incorrect.

There are times when my FF Sony is the best option. There are times when my Oly rig is best because of the IBIS and small tele lenses. Blanket statements like yours just reveal ignorance.

Click to expand...

Right, Olympus has a slight advantage in IBIS performance and that’s the entire justification for their system right now. Give it a year.

Click to expand...

Wrong !

Panny 100-400 on a G9 or Em1 will put 20mp on 800mm equiv with exposure at f6.3. And you get 5 to 6 stops of IBIS so you can shoot down to 125 maybe less hand held at 200ISO

This simply isnt possible with full frame. Smaller sensors will always have better IBIS simply because its physically easier to move the sensor around.

I could use my A7 and 42mp and crop but i would still not have the IBIS which on a Sony is maybe 3 stops at best.

Canon R is way way behind.

This is before you factor in cost and size differences as well - which are considerable.

I love shooting FF but i know when 4/3 will do a better job.

Daft Punk said:

9VIII said:

UIKEYINPUTDOWNARROW> Daft Punk wrote:

Daft Punk said:

9VIII said:

Daft Punk said:

DarnGoodPhotos said:

Nonsense, that's why I said "m4/3 is noisier than full frame,"

Of course there are many situations where full Rame does not provide a low light advantage. Shooting at f1.4 in low light makes gives you such a shallow depth of field that you often have to stop down to more of the scene in focus; in this case the noise between m4/3 f1.4 and full frame f2.8 is the same.

Click to expand...

If you are shooting at the same ISO the point you made is partially true. But it ignores reality.

With an Olympus EM1 mk2 you have 5 stops of IBIS. With a EM1 X you have 7 stops of IBIS.

200 ISO on the Olympus is going to give you at least equal IQ and DRO to a 6DII or EOS R/ RP at 800 ISO. If you take the Canon above 800 ISO, the M4.3 Oly will be superior.

There will be times when the better IBIS of the Oly will achieve this. Shutter speed is therefore a factor of course as will be the widest aperture of the lens you are using.

But my point is that saying "m4/3 is noisier than full frame" is not entirely correct , it really depends on various factors.

Click to expand...

You’re still limited to comparing with Canon, every other manufacturer puts M4/3 to shame and it won’t be long before Canon catches up.

Click to expand...

As someone who has cameras from all the major manufacturers ( i only lack Panasonic and Leica ) i have to say your statement is simply incorrect.

There are times when my FF Sony is the best option. There are times when my Oly rig is best because of the IBIS and small tele lenses. Blanket statements like yours just reveal ignorance.

Click to expand...

Right, Olympus has a slight advantage in IBIS performance and that’s the entire justification for their system right now. Give it a year.

Click to expand...

Wrong !

Panny 100-400 on a G9 or Em1 will put 20mp on 800mm equiv with exposure at f6.3. And you get 5 to 6 stops of IBIS so you can shoot down to 125 maybe less hand held at 200ISO

This simply isnt possible with full frame. Smaller sensors will always have better IBIS simply because its physically easier to move the sensor around.

I could use my A7 and 42mp and crop but i would still not have the IBIS which on a Sony is maybe 3 stops at best.

Canon R is way way behind.

This is before you factor in cost and size differences as well - which are considerable.

I love shooting FF but i know when 4/3 will do a better job.

Click to expand...

As you said, blanket statements are ignorant. There are plenty of times where IBIS isn't even in the shooting equation. If you want to freeze motion or have plenty of light/lens speed it's basically no issue

Totally agree. Canon R or RP with L primes is a dream for shooting portraits in nice light or low light.

If i am walking in the wilderness with my dogs i would pack a M43 rig for the reach, IBIS.

Different cams for different things.

sportyaccordy said:

Classic_Man said:

Tried a73 in store again and was surprised to find the eye af just not that great despite thr reviews.

Was able to handle the EOS rp body but there was no lense or converyerc. However my concern is that eos rp eye af < Sony a73 eye af. So aside from price this body may not have what I want

Click to expand...

Odds are very high you didn't know what the hell you were doing. A7M3 Eye AF-C is top notch.

Click to expand...

In other words, Sony cameras have a greater learning curve than Canon.

007peter said:

Its difficult to contain my excitement for this $1299 FF Canon RP. This is the FF Rebel we've been waiting for. A true successor to the revolutionary $899 EOS 300D Rebel

Click to expand...

no it isn’t, different formats

007peter said:

that shatter the price barrier of overprice DSLR back in 2003.

1st DSLR to be price under $1000. $899 body, $999 with kit lens

more poignant questions are:

• will $1299 Canon RP start a Low End FF Price War?
• Can Sony + Nikon + Fuji afford to IGNORE (pretend it doesn't exist?)
• Will Nikon respond with a cheaper Nikon Z5 ?
• Will Sony respond with a cheaper Sony A6? Instead of relying on discounting 6yrs old Sony A7 Gen1
• how will this impact the price of New / Used Canon 6d II
• how cheap must Canon 6d II be in order for you to buy one over $1299 RP?

More importantly, what does this means for future APS-C & Micro43?

• has $1299 effectively CAPPED the price of APS-C & M43 camera?
• Suddenly paying $1299 for Panasonic G9 no longer seem like a good deal
• Suddenly paying $1499 for Fuji X-T3 seem foolish as well
• Not to mention the outrageously expensive $3000 Olympus EM1-X
• at what price point will APS-C / M43 camera seized to make sense?
• when Entry FF mirrorless falls to $799, can APS-C / M43 still justify its price tag?
• is Canon effectively killing of its own APS-C EOS-M? (1st casualty of war?)

Any hoot, I like to hear your opinions & what you think the Future Impact of $1299 Canon RP will be on the entire industry.

Click to expand...

Daft Punk said:

9VIII said:

Right, Olympus has a slight advantage in IBIS performance and that’s the entire justification for their system right now. Give it a year.

Click to expand...

Wrong !

Panny 100-400 on a G9 or Em1 will put 20mp on 800mm equiv with exposure at f6.3. And you get 5 to 6 stops of IBIS so you can shoot down to 125 maybe less hand held at 200ISO

This simply isnt possible with full frame. Smaller sensors will always have better IBIS simply because its physically easier to move the sensor around.

I could use my A7 and 42mp and crop but i would still not have the IBIS which on a Sony is maybe 3 stops at best.

Canon R is way way behind.

This is before you factor in cost and size differences as well - which are considerable.

I love shooting FF but i know when 4/3 will do a better job.

Click to expand...

First off the cost difference is near zero, those M4/3 bodies are ridiculously expensive for what they are.

The IBIS advantage is temporary. Full Frame IBIS will get better.
But even at 1/125th you’re ruining a lot of action shots anyway so it really doesn’t matter if FF IBIS does get better. You need a bigger sensor for high ISO shooting at fast shutter speeds.
You’ve already admitted that we have Full Frame sensors with lots of resolution for cropping.
All Sony and Canon have to do is sell a 400f6.3 lens (which makes sense since most people stop down to f8 at those distances anyway).

And Canon will catch up, and they will surpass everyone else. Canon hasn’t dominated the market for 30 years based on flashy advertising.
Canon R&D is absolutely second to none.

Looks like Nikon is Fielding an RP low priced competitor. I say bring it. Let's slash these prices way down.

Not a war, more like playing defense. Trying to revive interest in dedicated cameras and recapture customers that are satisfied with what their smartphones can give them. This is not just Canon, all camera companies need to play defense.

If smartphones continue improving their capabilities, they increasingly satisfy the photo taking needs of more and more people. They move higher up the food chain, and cameras start become non-essential luxuries. Point and shoot cameras were first to succumb to the smartphone abyss. What’s next?

How do they position their products to avoid becoming ensnared by the smartphone juggernaught? They need to play to the strengths of dedicated cameras with capabilities that smartphones can’t assimilate in hardware and software. They need to get people wanting to take pictures that they can’t get with a smart phone.

And they need to offer these capabilities at a price that makes them compelling to pay for (pay for includes not only money but also weight, extra device to carry, extra device to charge up, extra pictures to manage - all things that take effort costs the consumer something).

Canon did this before with the Digital Rebel, opened the floodgates of APSC DSLR’s. Maybe they can do the same for FF and mirrorless.

I think there will be no flood at the gates with current prices. Not all have a few k in disposal income to throw at a kit.

Maybe if they introduced the first $500 full frame mirrorless then sure that would be an eye-opener and maybe there'd be a flood of buyers.