davev8
•
Veteran Member
•
Posts: 4,833
Re: Future of Canon M Series - Invest or Sell?
nnowak wrote:
R2D2 wrote:
nnowak wrote:
JimMorgan wrote:
Every time I see these kind of posts, especially with a reference to FF, I have to wonder. If money is an issue, especially a couple grand, what are they going to do for FF? The new Canon 70-200 F4 for the RF mount is $1599 MSRP and the F2,8 is $2599 MSRP. I'm guessing even when we start seeing a lot of third party RF lenses they will be several hundred dollars. Even the nifty 50 for the RF mount is $200 and the cheap zoom, the 24-240 is $899.
The "cheap zoom" is the RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 that retails for $399.
Right. Canon is going to be filling out the lower end RF lineup even more.
It will be really interesting to see how small and inexpensive the RF 18-45mm and 100-400mm end up.
the 18-45 if we get it will be an interesting lens.. it will replace my 11-22 but with 45mm be long enough for a standard lens
The RF mount also has the RF 600mm f/11 for $699 and the RF 800mm f/11 for $899. What Canon lenses are less expensive and can be adapted to the M system that would provide the respective 400mm and 500mm for equivalence?
Actually my EF 400mm f/5.6L does smashingly well on the M bodies (esp the M6ii!), and with a TC can cover the range of BOTH of those RF lenses. 640mm equiv @ f/5.6, and 900mm equiv @ f/8. $900 used.
Technically, your above combo would be equivalent to 640mm f/9.0 and 896mm f/13. No denying the quality of the output, but you are comparing an unstabilized and discontinued lens against new options. You also need to add the $429 cost of the 1.4X III into the equation. From experience, simultaneously juggling a TC and mount adapter just plain sucks.
M6ii + EF 400 f/5.6L. Full size image. No sharpening, NR, or DLO. Click on “original size”
M6ii + 400 f/5.6L
The size and weight differences are also huge.
Yes, the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the RF 50mm f/1.8. Much more expensive too.
LOL, that’s like saying a Walnut is bigger than a Peanut.
The point was that absolute statements claiming full frame is always bigger, heavier, and more expensive simply are not true.
I can however say that the EF-M 32 is a much better performer than the RF 50, even on the vaunted R5!
R2
-- hide signature --
.
.
.
.
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me it is bad I know it is .....................................................................................................
the EOS M is not dead and wont be for a long time ....as long as you don't want a flagship camera with a VF...if that's the case it died sometime ago
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
.........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton