AdamT wrote:
appears I have a 10/10 copy across the board.
Phew - the houses across the road test at F1.8 - 2.8 and 4 will check it nicely, you`ll see any blurry edges which (90% irrelevant) test charts may not show up
The pop-up EVF doesn't have to be mashed down to stick when stowing, the dials aren't stiff like the first copy I had, it makes a big difference in terms of feel; it doesn't feel cheap like the first copy I had
Mine feels refined in all respects too - to the point that I didn`t understand DPRs statement that the front dial felt "cheap" - mone doesn`t , it`s pretty loose with the right amount of click not to be heard
I am finding that although a fast lens and 1" exceeds my expectations in low light, no, it can't challenge my FF setup.
Of course - even a 20Mp M43 cam like the Pan G9 or Oly Em1-II show these things were its at sensor wise aperture even but the fast lens does close the gap when it comes to not needing to crank the ISO in the first place,
Exposing hot removes the shadow / sky noise at ISO125 and in typical canon style there`s loadsa highlight recovery to make up for it .
say smaller MILC setup ala EOS M system, goes further than dropping ridiculous cash on FF setups that need something smaller to pair with for on the go.
APS_C is all but dead, I think only fuji will hang in there - it`ll be FF + megazoom compacts which will survive,. these high end compacts will fall by the way side as phone sensors get bigger
I actually concur. That's a shame, Fuji's size and cost for APS-C mirror Canon's own R platform. I'm a real fan of the M, but even we're discussing amongst each other the fate of the system as it appears abandoned in favor of the RF platform, which is logical after all.
I think you're also right about the mega zoom compacts. That means the RX100 VII may get a VIII someday, etc. I could see that. Odd to think Fuji will be the only APS-C "survivor" and Sony/Panasonic will be the only compact "survivors". I don't see Canon surviving as they don't do their own sensor and this is a perfect example; the G5X II is dependent on that RX100 IV sensor, which is almost certainly out of production and out of stock meaning Canon won't do any more. And they won't write new code either for a dying product breed IE write AF code for Sony RX100 V/VA/VI/VII sensors... And they won't lend their fabrication away from the R for some time either.
have nearly as many combined between my various handles over the years here, edit, excuse me, you have 61000 posts
Most of those posts were in the halcyon days of the first DSLRs made pre-EFS/DX lenses picking our way through the various old EF film lenses for our D30s and D60s before EFS and DX came in - loadsa chat back in those days - also with the various up and coming compacts . I`ve not posted much in the past 10 years
Off topic; thoughts about FF vs Point and Shoots? I noted you're a FF and G5X II shooter yourself. Except you do it for $$, I'm just a well funded enthusiast. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery regarding Z9? Saw your have a Z7. The RF 28-70 f/2L keeps me glued to the R system as that particular optic is unique, otherwise the Z9 appears to be a winner on paper.
The Z9 is a full on professional sports camera which does hi-rez too - I`d wait til there`s a smaller version without all the speed - the Z system has few lenses but the standard zooms are out of this world , even the cheap plastic mount 24-50 is sharp edge to edge wideopen end to end and the 24-70 F4 "kit lens" is better optically than DSLR 24-70 F2.8s including Ls and Nikon G-ED , unbelievable - even the 24-200`s only weakness is CA, the rest of the lens inc the gimbal like VR is superb . knocked out as I use standard zooms for work more than anything and there`s the Z 24-70 F2.8 as well which gives all that at F2.8 without the usual Caveats which 24-xx F2.8 zooms (focus shift, Ca, Coma , poor bokeh etc) ..
IMO Canon`s core work lens in R is the 24-105 F4L as it was in the DSLR days , enough reach , enough quality (given a good copy and with FF fast enough - I had a golden copy 24-105 F4L back in the day which made a joke of the 24-70 F2.8L but I did cherry pick it from FIVE samples on the dealers shelves )
Nikon's glass on the lower end is pretty spectacular; the DX glass for the Z50 for example, I've noted the optical characteristics are really good and to your point the f/1.8 primes and f/4 zooms are really good. My problems is Nikon's existing lineup below the Z9, needs refinement. R has more polish on their lower end bodies presently. To your point the Z9 is huge, like the R3. Not ideal. I am intrigued by the low light performance of the R3, it appears to be a beast that no-one can touch. Although that's the idea, Stacked low-MP count FF sensor should best everything out there for sheer low light performance. The price, availability of the body and size though to get that sensor? I wish they'd dump the R3 sensor in an R6 body much as you'd prefer they dump the Z9 guts in a Z6/7 body. Funny we have similar complaints. I gather these new sensors and processors in particular, are power hungry and heat-producing monsters, it may be a bit for both Canon and Nikon to produce them in a smaller footprint.
.
I'm mentally processing that this is "the end" of sorts. I mean it had to come. Between smartphones and hardware vendor and now mount consolidations. Interesting. I wonder, was the G5X II a swan song by Canon? Their patents say they aren't done yet, but patents are a long ways from production. I've seen countless RF and EF-M patents never be produced. I've seen others like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM patent in 2013, and produce in 2018. That lens is a swan song of sorts too, as is the M6 Mark II. Hmph. Interesting to think those may be "it".
