Does the new R5 change your roadmap?

Started 4 days ago | Discussions thread
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 5,988
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1

MyM3 wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

rick9814911 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The new RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is the same length as the EF-M 18-150mm and only marginally fatter and heavier. The new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 lens sounds slow, but if this was a crop lens, it would be equivalent to a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5. Who here wouldn't love a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 lens for the M system?

Now, consider that the EOS RP is only marginally bigger and heavier than the M50. Most of the size difference comes from the larger grip on the RP Add this new $400 zoom lens to the RP and you have a pretty compact package with potential image quality better than any zoom lens in the M system. In a kit, this lens will be even cheaper. This would likely put a kit with the RP and new 24-105mm within $100 of the M6 II, 15-45mm and EVF.

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market. Instead of going head to head with crop sensor cameras like the Sony A6400 or Fuji X-T30, Canon is going to push small, stripped down full frame cameras and lenses to those price points. 7D users will likely be out of luck too. The new R5 appears to be the spiritual successor to the 5D series. When shooting in a crop mode, the R5 could produce images with at least 15MP. The only real advantage a 7D would have over the R5 is price. The R5 could replace both the 5D and 7D series. The R6 could replace both the 6D and 90D series. The RP, or future smaller version, could replace the 8Ti Rebel and M5 series. The only camera I don't see getting a direct full frame replacement is the M100/M200, but how long will those models last with the progress of smartphones?

I disagree with most of these points. The EF-M 18-150 weighs 300 grams, the RF 24-105 weighs 700 grams. That is not even close to marginal. I agree that when you factor in the 1.6x crop on the aperture, the 24-105 is a far better lens for low light and getting stronger bokeh. But in terms of weight and size, the difference is massive, regardless of body size. It is not possible to build a full frame kit and have the weight be even close to APS-C.

He's talking about the newly-announced RF 24-105 IS STM - that's 395g, so it certainly is marginal.

I also feel smartphones are very far from matching APS-C. Only time will tell, maybe you're right. But I can't get pictures anywhere close quality wise from a smartphone when compared with a crop sensor camera. If you want professional looking images, there are very few situations where a smartphone is going to come close.

The RF 24-105 STM should be compared to to the EF-M 15-45 (24-72mm ff equiv).

That 15-45mm has a full frame aperture equivalence of f/5.6-10.  That puts is squarely into smartphone territory.  Especially when you take into account all of the optical problems with the 15-45mm.

Much closer (equiv) focal lengths. (The smallest kit lenses for each system.) The RF lens is 3x as heavy and MUCH bigger.

The EF-M 18-150mm (29-240mm equiv) should be compared to the RF 24-240mm.

The RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3 is equivalent to a crop sensor 15-150mm f/2.5-4.0.  Focal lengths might be similar to the EF-M lens, but apertures are not even close.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow