Seriously, Canon?

nnowak wrote:

m100 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

A used R is around 1000 euro these days. If you do some creative shopping with third party EF occasions you can get a whole lot of IQ for your buck. I got a used Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 for only 310 euro, and a Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary for only 450 euro and a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art for only 350 euro. These prices are M territory, while the IQ is definitely a whole lot better.

We might also see the R6mkI come down in price, especially used ones. If you pair it with an RF 24-240mm USM and one or two primes it's more expensive than M, but it's good value for money imo.

Not everybody needs a stabilized 135mm. The Sigma Art is half the price, and if it's IQ isn't good enough for you..... you're beyond my level of pixel peeping.

Yes RF is expensive, but there are ways to keep those prices more down to earth making it still value for money.

That said it's a shame of course Canon is killing M. Canon isn't killing it because it's not capable. Canon kills M because it's too capable for it's price. Without the killing of M the R10 and that odd 18-45mm couldn't simply survive. Canon wants you to pay more for getting less, and this is how they do it.

I was with you until you got to the conspiracy theories. Reality just does not agree with you. On the Japanese BCN rankings, the M50 and M50 II have been in the top 5 for multiple consecutive years. That was until the R10 was launched. The R10 has now been in the top 5 for the last two months and the M50 II has not. This was all well before any rumors of the M50 II being discontinued. Canon killing off the M system has nothing to do with protecting expensive RF gear and everything to do with it no longer being economically feasible to support multiple incompatible mounts. Canon is now selling about one quarter of the number of cameras they did in the past. It only makes sense that the camera lineup would also be about one quarter of what is was in the past.

While you may not personally like the R10, it is all-around more capable than the M50 II and appears to be well received by the masses. The RF-S lens lineup does look quite paltry, but so was the EF-M lineup at launch in 2012 The 11-22mm did not launch until a year later and was not sold in the USA until three years after the launch of the M system (2015). It took Canon six years to launch the eighth lens, the 32mm f/1.4. RF-S is not even at the 6 month mark yet. At least the R10 and R7 have native full frame RF options available instead of resorting to adapting the EF 50mm f/1.8 or EF 35mm f/2.0 IS like so many had to do with the M system.

In the Studio scene Image comparison tool they used a RF 50mm f/1.2 L lens with the R10.

A 2 lb lens ?

The M50 had an adapted EF 50mm f.1.4 on it.

DPReview has always tried to use the highest resolution lens available from a given brand that falls into the 85-90mm equivalent focal range. While the EF 50mm f/1.4 sucks wide open, it is extremely sharp stopped down to f/5.6 as used in the testing. In general, they try to use the best possible lens so that any visible deficiencies are due to the camera itself. Sticking with the 85-90mm equivalent range tends to eliminate any perspective distortion that might result from using a wider lens. It also means that most test images can be captured from roughly the same location.

So why can they use the RF 50mm F/1.2 on most of the FF R-mount cameras? But can NOT use the great native EF-M 32mm f/1.4 on the latest M-cameras? Instead they use an ooooold EF lens instead ? Very inconsistent if you ask me. (Shakes head in disbelief.)

I use a Sigma 56mm f/1.4.

I will not buy a crop camera body that will not mount a Sigma 56mm.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosm50_studio&attr13_1=canon_eosr10&attr13_2=panasonic_dcs1r&attr13_3=sony_a7riv&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_0=1&attr171_1=1&attr171_2=1&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=775&x=-0.212663859&y=-0.612035334