RLight wrote:
Photato wrote:
Right now, I'm sitting on the fence between staying with the M long term or moving on to the R APS-C R10, but not excited to further commit to Canon nor have a good impression about Fuji or Sony.
I've given consideration to the R10 and R7 recently and may even do a write up on the topic as platform conversions aren't something to be taken lightly.
.
Some thoughts regarding the R7 and R10...
.
For weight and size, the R7 (which you didn't ask) is more on par with the RP, which in turn isn't so portable after adding existing glass available at this time.
Having spent a lot of time with my $1750 RP + RF 24-105 F4 L -- I like it a lot -- for what it does - it isn't so big when I like something this much
.
The R10 on the other hand when paired with say the RF-S 18-45 or RF-S 18-150, or, one of the non-L RF primes, ala RF 50 f/1.8, RF 35 f/1.8, RF 24 f/1.8, you're talking business.
nope - starting at 29 fov is not business for me -- I use 24 fov a lot -- I see you use 15 mm (24 fov) a lot
In fact, the RF 35mm in particular can give you 0.8x macro capabilities,
get a 100L or RF 85 f2 - the working distance better suits macro
with IS, on a crop.
Where the R10 lacks is in a wide angle option,
yep - the achilles heel
and, still isn't as compact/light as an M, and, lacks the ISO performance and resolution of the M6 II all at the same time... That hurts.
yep - hurts bad
.
Canon is also holding themselves back by not using a stacked sensor. Although I agree with keeping things low-cost, and "kicking it out the door" so I may concur with the move to do another FSI in terms of a business decision, in terms of an enthusiast,
I'm well aware that what holds me back on the M is autofocus and shutter shock ruining the number of keepers I take back home.
we've covered this before, but your face/eye detect tracking ain't keeping up with your slow stm lens. Instead, need to use spot focus and manually track
I do get plenty, but compared to say my lowly R, or G5X II? Heh, no. The trouble is the R10 although has better autofocus processing, it still has a slower readout sensor which I've seen enough demos to tell you this side of even touching one, no.
the rolling shutter is an issue
It may beat an M50/II, but in low light or demanding situations, I've read and suspect it'll struggle.
m6II sensor and DXO PL5 for the win!
Should Canon do an R20, with say the same M6 II sensor, we can talk.
they've reserved the 32.5 mpxl sensor for $1500 cameras
Also, the lack of crop RF glass, really does do it in.
Going R10 although tempting,
yuk -backwards to that old 24 mpxl sensor and backwards with no great apscs glass
I know from experience it'd be going back to SL2 + EF-S footprint right now.
yep, backwards
When I came back to M, I tried the SL2, wonderful I might add, but the footprint difference between M and EF-S?
The M is a joy to shoot due to the footprint.
^ this
RF-S, because it exists in only two lenses right now, that's a real problem. Don't kid yourself.
^ this
https://bit.ly/3RKp8J8
The R10 may have access to that 100-400, which I suspect is awesome on a crop, but look at the footprint?
reach is what it is about, but need 32.5 mpxl for reach also
Also wide angle in particular becomes a problem...
https://bit.ly/3eh1172
I'll say there is very much a case to argue the RP, or it's successor with say an RF 15-30 (not-L) and it's non-L lenses, start to make RF-S look like a crop-reach only affair.
yep - case is for RP
for reach, then R7
https://bit.ly/3fTkeMo
Imagine the RP mark II gets say the 30MP ADC capable R sensor, for a minute.
And let's look at "standard" zooms for a moment too
Will Canon ever do a "fast" RF-S zoom? Or do you have to adapt a legacy EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, which has older optical formula, USM motor? Ridiculous
I fear Canon will never do a RF-S f/2.8 zoom.
^ this
If they were going to? They should've launched it out the gate with the R7, they didn't. But as a result, this is how insane reality is.
it is a strategy to get users to FF instead
.
Oddly I think the M will stay in production ala M50 II, M200 and existing M glass for the short term, but the alternatives, Fuji and Sony have problems too. Sony has cancelled their enthusiast A6500/A6600 lineup, Fuji still can't get autofocus right after how many years and is still FF in size, price? Ugh.
exactly
Don't get me started with market conditions like chip shortages, etc.
sony is worried about their FF also
fuji will suffer letting those siggy's in
But this is how you end up looking at the "old" M as being really friendly, despite Canon wishing they had never made it so as to sell more R.
yeah, they have regrets
Ironically, the camera from yesterday (M's), is the funnest one. That shouldn't be and represents a failure IMO by Canon to not launch the RF-S platform correctly.
I don't think they ever planned more than a R7. The R10 was an after thought imo
Granted they're still growing it, but are they? Again look above and you can quickly see how the R7 is meant as a "birder" and the R10 is meant as the new Rebel, where folks only ever shoot the stock lens, and a telephoto. They've got both ala the RF-S 18-45 and RF 100-400... The R10/R7 may be "complete" in Canon's eyes. Go figure. Sadly if I was a product manager, I'd be nodding my head and suggesting marketing the R10 better to soccer moms, not making more RF-S glass...
R7/R10 + RF100-400 was the soccer mom cameras -- then they switch to their iphones
My 2 cents, you've got the M with it's glass, the RP (or R, R6) and non RF-L glass, and the R10/7 with it's stock lens, and telephoto options. And then Fuji/Sony. Pick.
my solution is M6II + two lenses (32 + 11-22), then FF for the amazing RF 24-105L then maybe an R7 with the RF 100-400 and Rf 800 for reach
