That's my point.
Easy easy.
Maybe I should have responded to that post to, in stead of responding to your reply.
A lot compared to the other lens-camera combo. That ratio doesn't change no matter how high your income is.
which imo is a portrait lens and not a common lens for landscapes at all -- so you started the off-topic landscape stuff and I just pointed out that I'd not use that lens for landscapes but use my RF 24-105 L
who cares
nonsense, not off topic at all
You can do landscapes with any lens, and it's the same for portraits. Some focal lengths require a bit higher skill level for some purposes, that's all.landscape stuff and I just pointed out that I'd not use that lens for landscapes but use my RF 24-105 L
agree, RF ff is terrific, no reason to buy into a stagnant m systemI wish you weren't right but that is simply not the case.The 32 is the better lens; it’s just not married to RF mount. The 32 if it were RF, would be a 50mm f/2L, just no weather sealing and STM (instead of USM) for $499. That’s a better analogy.
Popco does their usual Imatests on both (32mm below):
https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.p...sc=&no=1081&ReviewUrl=canon_EF-M_32mm_04.html
32mm vignette, a benchmark of t-stop essentially, you can find this on Popco.
RF 50mm:
https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.p...ge=&desc=&no=1119&ReviewUrl=3_RF50.8_opt.html
RF 50mm vignette, note it has a full stop more vignette occurring on until f/4.
If you pay attention to those vignette charts, the 32mm is delivering substantially more light than the RF 50mm until you hit f/4, where at that point, it's a sharpness dogfight anyways; DoF and ISO handling are virtually moot at that point. Both are very sharp by f/4 I might add.
Make no mistake, as before, the 32 is the better lens. Now, I didn't say it was the better choice. Really it's up to the eye of the beholder here and use case intent, portability, price, etc, those are the bigger factors. But on sheer performance? The 32mm is "smoking" the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM if you check the imatest data out.
In my eyes, the real competitor to the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM is not the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, it's an unreleased RF 50mm f/1.4 USM, should they ever do one. By f/2, the RF 50mm f/1.4 USM, if they ever make one, should trade blows with the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM. The 32mm trades blows alright though with the f/1.8 variant, and blows the house right down in my book.
Again though, don't pick the 32mm because of it's performance, pick it because of it's capabilities, if, you plan to go M. Part of the M's problem isn't the quality of the EF-M glass (it's quite good actually if you truly compare it), it's the lack of EF-M glass and support for it going forward. No fast normal zoom and lack of M5 Mark II, are big downers for folks like myself that have "cross over" with the FF crowd.
I like my Ms but I like my ff even more.
Wrong. Not everyone uses such ratio to measure affordability. Again, do not ever assume your thought process or view should be THE standard. Your opinion. Not law.
At least that ratio is less situation dependent and as such less subjective.
All I did was mentioning the used standard should be mentioned to make a descriptor like "usable" meaningful. That's not the same as telling what should be THE standard, sorry.
Just logic. Without reference the descriptor "usable" is meaningless. If it's against your law to mention this, sorry. I would rather classify that as an opinion.
Define usable for you. That's contributing MORE MEANINGFULLY.
If you can only achieve usable at ISO 200 with the M50 you're doing something wrong.
Note: I didn't use the word usable.
I have been testing DxO PhotoLab 4 with lots of files from different cameras and I am starting to really like the way DxO PhotoLab 4 works on M6II raw files.agree, RF ff is terrific, no reason to buy into a stagnant m systemI wish you weren't right but that is simply not the case.The 32 is the better lens; it’s just not married to RF mount. The 32 if it were RF, would be a 50mm f/2L, just no weather sealing and STM (instead of USM) for $499. That’s a better analogy.
Popco does their usual Imatests on both (32mm below):
https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.p...sc=&no=1081&ReviewUrl=canon_EF-M_32mm_04.html
32mm vignette, a benchmark of t-stop essentially, you can find this on Popco.
RF 50mm:
https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.p...ge=&desc=&no=1119&ReviewUrl=3_RF50.8_opt.html
RF 50mm vignette, note it has a full stop more vignette occurring on until f/4.
If you pay attention to those vignette charts, the 32mm is delivering substantially more light than the RF 50mm until you hit f/4, where at that point, it's a sharpness dogfight anyways; DoF and ISO handling are virtually moot at that point. Both are very sharp by f/4 I might add.
Make no mistake, as before, the 32 is the better lens. Now, I didn't say it was the better choice. Really it's up to the eye of the beholder here and use case intent, portability, price, etc, those are the bigger factors. But on sheer performance? The 32mm is "smoking" the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM if you check the imatest data out.
In my eyes, the real competitor to the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM is not the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, it's an unreleased RF 50mm f/1.4 USM, should they ever do one. By f/2, the RF 50mm f/1.4 USM, if they ever make one, should trade blows with the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM. The 32mm trades blows alright though with the f/1.8 variant, and blows the house right down in my book.
Again though, don't pick the 32mm because of it's performance, pick it because of it's capabilities, if, you plan to go M. Part of the M's problem isn't the quality of the EF-M glass (it's quite good actually if you truly compare it), it's the lack of EF-M glass and support for it going forward. No fast normal zoom and lack of M5 Mark II, are big downers for folks like myself that have "cross over" with the FF crowd.
I like my Ms but I like my ff even more.
thx, good to knowI have been testing DxO PhotoLab 4 with lots of files from different cameras and I am starting to really like the way DxO PhotoLab 4 works on M6II raw files.agree, RF ff is terrific, no reason to buy into a stagnant m systemI wish you weren't right but that is simply not the case.The 32 is the better lens; it’s just not married to RF mount. The 32 if it were RF, would be a 50mm f/2L, just no weather sealing and STM (instead of USM) for $499. That’s a better analogy.
Popco does their usual Imatests on both (32mm below):
https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.p...sc=&no=1081&ReviewUrl=canon_EF-M_32mm_04.html
32mm vignette, a benchmark of t-stop essentially, you can find this on Popco.
RF 50mm:
https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.p...ge=&desc=&no=1119&ReviewUrl=3_RF50.8_opt.html
RF 50mm vignette, note it has a full stop more vignette occurring on until f/4.
If you pay attention to those vignette charts, the 32mm is delivering substantially more light than the RF 50mm until you hit f/4, where at that point, it's a sharpness dogfight anyways; DoF and ISO handling are virtually moot at that point. Both are very sharp by f/4 I might add.
Make no mistake, as before, the 32 is the better lens. Now, I didn't say it was the better choice. Really it's up to the eye of the beholder here and use case intent, portability, price, etc, those are the bigger factors. But on sheer performance? The 32mm is "smoking" the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM if you check the imatest data out.
In my eyes, the real competitor to the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM is not the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, it's an unreleased RF 50mm f/1.4 USM, should they ever do one. By f/2, the RF 50mm f/1.4 USM, if they ever make one, should trade blows with the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM. The 32mm trades blows alright though with the f/1.8 variant, and blows the house right down in my book.
Again though, don't pick the 32mm because of it's performance, pick it because of it's capabilities, if, you plan to go M. Part of the M's problem isn't the quality of the EF-M glass (it's quite good actually if you truly compare it), it's the lack of EF-M glass and support for it going forward. No fast normal zoom and lack of M5 Mark II, are big downers for folks like myself that have "cross over" with the FF crowd.
I like my Ms but I like my ff even more.
I was all set ready to take my RP to the car show yesterday and I put it down and took the M6II. I wanted to bring home some M6II raw files to play with.
DxO PhotoLab 4 likes working with M6II raw files and so do I. A lot.
All of the above is true, and there’s even more differentiation (in favor of RF) when using the R5 IME.
the RPs portability and grip with just a wrist strap is really nice. Colors and SOOC jpgs and control ring for EC are great.
Never got into the RP. Waited for the (more mature) R5. Just like I waited until DPAF hit the M Series (M5).
I have those lenses too (also the aforementioned 50 STM and 35 STM). As I alluded to, I use the R System whenever I need max IQ for commissioned shoots. Plus I'm (im)patiently awaiting the RF 100L, and am VERY curious about its non-macro capabilities too!
A big +1
I disagree. Don't worry, we don't have to agree.
You can do some measurements and math on sharpness and and blur of equivalent apertures etc. etc. Nonetheless the character of the ef-m 32mm f/1.4 is unmatched. It's sharper than L zooms. O.k., some full frame primes will beat it, but the RF nifty fifty isn't one of them.
