MAC wrote:
RLight wrote:
Happy New Years!
u 2
...And happy espresso... Coffee, wonderful thing. Anyhow.
long and windy...
.
What lenses do you have these days R2? *Yawns* Curious if you've handled the
RF 100-400, 24-105 f/4-7.1,
likely not - I have the great RF 24-105L and the great 55-250 stm
or RF16.
this one gets my attention
.
Anyhow, Canon has certainly made a strong argument for the R platform with all those new non-L RF lenses as I've said for the past 2 years (or is it 3/4 now?),
I wait for the 18-45
however, they still have several key weaknesses that exist for as long as the R/RF platform has existed (and probably will for some time in some regards)...
duh - of course, they are just getting statretd
.
1. The RF 100-400 (not L obviously), it's way too large for a compact telephoto option. It's 3.24 times larger and 2.44 times heavier than it's EF-M 55-200mm sibling.
sorry -- the 55-250 stm is its sibling
Despite going all plastic, nano-USM, mirrorless optimized and slower apertures, it's still not enough to beat physics of having to cover a FF image circle against an also all plastic, STM motor, mirrorless optimized lens covering a crop image circle. Yes, it's a faster lens in terms of equivalence, but, that speed isn't in fact fast enough to matter in practical use.
your 55-200 gets 320 fov on 24 mpxl
my 55-250 stm gets 400 fov on 32.5 mpxl at f5.6
the lens is about reach
2. The RP that is the would be M killer although cheap and small enough, cannot do uncropped 4K, does a mere 4FPS in AI servo, and does not have ADC meaning it has a 1 stop disadvantage in Dynamic Range for landscape uses vs ALL the modern EOS
it's a great price, and small and great canon classic colors, and great sooc jpgs --great all-arounder with the RF24-105 f4 L that fits in some of my jacket pockets
M's (as the M100, M5, M6, M200, M6 II, M50, M50 II all have either the 80D or 90D sensor).
true - iso 100 is better dr on my m6II - but not mid-high iso - and the general RF24-105F4L does fine
.
3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.
too hung up on 22-- the 32 is so much better
.
4. The RF 24-240 is 2.48 times larger and 2.5 times heavier than it's EF-M 18-150 sibling. Again, the nano-USM is nice as is the 24mm on the wide end, but as someone who's handled both, again, although that f/4-6.3 is nice, it makes almost no real difference in terms of true output differences for use case. Again, you've gotta get to a f/4 constant aperture for it to tilt the balance which would make this lens huge.
neither for me
On the large end of things (superzoom and telephoto), the M is simply way more compact. And on the very small end of things (that 22 pancake), the M again goes places the R can't. In terms of sheer technical performance, due to Canon's choice to sensor use, which is a hard one to get around due to cost concerns of developing yet another sensor just for an RP, or, passing down the R6 sensor which I don't see Canon doing, as it would jeproadize the R6's position/profits, it's difficult for Canon to make a RP body compete with an M in sports/action (faster readout needed) or landscape situation (dynamic range).
there are other mfgs that will do it though
.
Where do I see things going?
.
I do think Canon's going to update that R/RP this year. But, their options are limited unless they want to throw an R6 sensor in it or make yet another sensor which is costly from R&D standpoint plus opening another line of chips (really?). Hint, they don't want to do either.
I'd agree - they'll do an R sensor in the RPII
.
My bet? Canon will throw an R sensor in an RP footprint, update the AF and WB firmware/software and call it the RP Mark II replacing both the R and RP in one shot. This gives them a small platform, and doesn't compete with the R5/R6, 30MP bump and ADC at a cheaper price point without threatening anything. However comma, the downsides is it will still fail to produce uncropped 4K, the readout speed will lag behind the M6 II which makes it less apt for sports/action duty as that readout speed is key, particularly in telephoto scenarios and the AI-FPS will still be 5-6FPS, tops, again readout and also processing power in a smaller footprint becomes a problem as larger sensors put out more heat, draw more power and the scan time of the 5DIV sensor isn't exactly stellar. They could bump the Single-FPS though just like the R. This will shift the balance for Dynamic range and landscape shooters as 30MP and ADC plus that new RF 16mm f/2.8 is a slick move. But, for those using telephoto action, the bar remains unchanged. Dare I say all those "soccer moms" will be better served with an M, but, the RP Mark II does mark a solid benefit over the RP presently.
unfortunately -- I want an m5II with IBIS
.
One of the key things that the M presently lacks, is a fast, compact, f/2.8 (or similar) zoom.
go siggy 18-50 for m5II
I feel Canon is trying to keep a fast native zoom as a strategic asset for the R as they've made several patents like the EF-M 15-45 f/1.8-3.5 in the past but haven't put them into production. The Sigma 18-55 f/2.8, could be adapted much as the "trio" was solving this problem. But like the f/1.4 trio, it came out for the Sony E mount first, and EF-M followed afterwards. Personally I feel a native Canon offering would be superior as it could be wider and faster on the wide end, but, this may never happen. That Sigma may happen. May this year too. This is where shortages and software adaptation come into play delaying it for a time. Hopefully it's 2022 though.
u should really give m6II with m32 a try
I’ve thought about going back.
