nnowak wrote:
RLight wrote:
Happy New Years!
.
...And happy espresso... Coffee, wonderful thing. Anyhow.
New year, new espresso machine. Bliss!
.
What lenses do you have these days R2? *Yawns* Curious if you've handled the RF 100-400, 24-105 f/4-7.1, or RF16.
.
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)...
The delayed RF 18-45mm is the biggest hole in the current lens lineup. A small and cheap shorter telephoto zoom like a 70-250mm is also missing. Bonus points if they crank out one of those compact full frame zooms similar to the Sony 28-60mm or Panasonic 20-60mm to pair with it.
.
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.
It is 75 grams lighter than the DSLR stalwart 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II, and only 20mm longer. Paired with the 24-105mm STM, you can cover a lot of ground for not much money or weight. Yeah, the apertures on those zooms are slow, but the 16mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.8 are all small, light, and cheap complements.
.
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).
Base ISO dynamic range on the RP is not great, but high ISO noise levels are definitely better than any of the M cameras. For most people, the difference in noise levels will be more obvious than the difference in dynamic range. Especially if they are a JPEG shooter.
.
3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.
It seems many around here are now foregoing the 22mm in favor of the larger 32mm.
.
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.
.
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).
It is really just against the M6 II where the RP falls short. The M50/M200 don't have anywhere near the performance advantage.
.
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.
.
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.
Canon's current sensor options in general make for a bit of a weird lineup. The 24mp crop sensor has all of the same speed problems as the 26mp RP sensor. The 30mp sensor has a bit better image quality, but again with the readout issues. The R5 sensor and pricing makes perfect sense, but below that, the lineup lacks continuity. Common sense would put 20mp in the RP, 26mp in the R, and 30mp in the R6. The readout speed disparities make that impossible. If someone is coming from the 30mp R, the 20mp R6 is a tough sell as an "upgrade".
I think Canon may need to design a new sensor to sort out some of this mess. They could still put it on the old fab that runs the 26mp and 30mp sensors, but optimize the design for full width 4k with pixel binning and line skipping. Rolling shutter would be bad and the video would be a bit soft, but I think most would take those tradeoffs over the current crop factor.
EOS R and RF 16 is a great combo for 4k with DPAF.
