DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Moving to the RF system

Started Dec 25, 2019 | Discussions thread
thunder storm Forum Pro • Posts: 10,139
Re: As predicted...

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Ferazzzz_2011 wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

2ndact scene1 wrote:

Apparently the RP and M50 share the same EVF and processor but I think many people would agree that the RP is a stronger value proposition even at a $400 higher price.

One affordability comparison:

A 51mm-equivalent EF-M lens: $429.99

A 50mm RF lens: $2,099.00

(Current Canon USA Store prices.)

The RP is an entry-level FF camera, but almost all RF lenses are big, expensive L lenses.

In Japan (BCN) between the M50, M100, R and RP, the RP is the worst seller. I don't recall ever seeing it in the top 50.

No matter how one looks at this from a financial standpoint the R system entry is cheap BUT NOT HIGH QUALITY RF GLASS. There will always be a place for the M system

Canons marketing strategy will assure there will be a place for M, that's for sure.

and the difference overall isn't as dramatic as the price moving up to R glass...

Depends on your needs.

Correct. For me and my wedding photography the R & 5D IV come out but I have even giving the M5 + EF-M 32 a chance as a backup body and it was fantastic :and fun to use in proper lighting of course where the AF didn't take a beating...

Other then DOF difference and somewhat of a slightly 3 dimensional look that FF can produce (and even then this statement is overblown by many and used as an excuse for THE ALWAYS FF STATE OF MIND) there was an almost an in perceivable sharpness difference on my end, and I was using my glorious RF50 on my R.

While i never will have an RF50 at hand, it is clear to me the copy dxo mark tested is way sharper at f/2.2 than the copy of the ef-m 32mm i tested at f/1.4. From f/2.0 the ef-m 32mm is truly impressive, and to be fair, wide open it is still impressive for what it is, however, when you start comparing to 50mm on full frame wide open it leaves you wanting.

When asking of topic questions here the best one might be: Why is there a need to compare to these full frame lenses? If you have a fast car, why would you compare it to a Tesla Model X? Does it make your car faster when it is "almost as fast" as the Tesla (while acceleration will obviously relatively suck)?

Yes it was better but not for the price difference, not even close in my eyes...

"For the price" is always subjective, and this wasn't part of the discussion either.

Talking IQ here not build quality because we all know there is no contest there...

Different strokes for different folks as usual...

That was not part of this discussion.

The photographer will make the difference here as usual mate..

That was not part of this discussion.

Someone stated here the ef-m 32mm was as good if not sharper than the EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM mkII. It's not.

You compared the ef-m 32mm to the RF50mm f/1.2. If we focus just on this question: "Is the full frame lens better?" this is the answer:

Yes it was better

-- hide signature --

If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sony a7 IV Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +24 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow