I don’t use it much these days, but I can’t let go of it. It’s special.
Ditto.
.
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?), 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)...
They're certainly pushing ahead as hard as they can. The pro market has of course been their priority (bread and butter), followed closely by the entry level (to attract DSLR cross-overs and newbies). It'll be interesting to see if they address the Enthusiast market any time soon. Like you say, there's still a pretty big gulf in the lineup still.
.
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. 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.
Yeah, exactly why the RF 100-400 doesn't interest me.
If I want to go lighter (than my biggie 100-500), then I have the still very solid EF-S 55-250 on my Wish List. I'd perform Larry Rexley's surgery on it and stick the Kenko TC on the back (along with the EF-M adapter), then throw it behind the seat of my car for emergency use (for the times when I don't have the Big Boy along). It'd pair (very nicely I might add) with the M6ii.
.
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 M's (as the M100, M5, M6, M200, M6 II, M50, M50 II all have either the 80D or 90D sensor).
I thought long and hard about adding an RP as a second R body, but just couldn't accept that many trade-offs. I'll still take the M6ii along for now, with a nice prime attached.
.
3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.
+1 When I want the smallest kit available, I take either just the leetle 22 or the 15-45 (I have a nice copy).
.
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.
Agree. I skipped the 24-240 and opted instead for the constant-aperture RF 24-105 f/4L.
.
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.
Indeed. These two systems complement each other so well.
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).
The M6ii's performance is truly a marvel. I've shot everything with it. For sports and action, my keeper rates actually rival the $$$$ R System.
I do prefer the larger body (R5) to pair with the 100-500 + 1.4x for my birding tho. And the substantial bump in ISO performance is (for me) a necessity, esp for my event shooting.
.
Where do I see things going?
.
I do think Canon's going to update that R/RP this year.
That's indeed a given!
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.
Good point.
.
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.
Bingo. My thoughts as well. RP Mark II. Entry level. It might even come in less than the RP at its initial retail.
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.
Agree here too. Although I think the performance bump will be just enough to satisfy the Soccer Moms out there. Canon will want that segment covered with this new release.
.
One of the key things that the M presently lacks, is a fast, compact, f/2.8 (or similar) zoom. 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.
Bingo. Segmentation is Canon's middle name. That's also the reason why we won't see IBIS in an M body for quite some time yet, if ever.
Maybe not. I do think we’ll see a BSI or stacked eventually though. Going stacked would let them drop the shutter btw.
The Sigma 18-55 f/2.8, could be adapted much as the "trio" was solving this problem.
A fast EF-M standard zoom would (for me) be the final piece of the puzzle.
But like the f/1.4 trio, it came out for the Sony E mount first, and EF-M followed afterwards.
Hopefully this fast zoom will follow that precedent.
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.
Canon is letting 3rd-party carry the torch from here. EF lens communication protocols are basically open (unlike RF), and 3rd-party is free to step in any time they want.
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.
... and I hope Sigma "wants" to release this zoom in EF-M this year!!!
Happy New Year All!
R2
