Reading mode: Light Dark

Seriously, Canon?

Go to last post
Thanks for the clarification. I haven't looked closely at the R system since I'm still using the Canon M system and my DSLRs. I suppose someone could start with the Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 lens. A lot of these can be purchased used in excellent shape for less than $250 (USD) since they may have started out as being kit lenses. If I were to start with a Canon R system I would probably begin there. The Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 lens looks reasonably priced. But anything else...yeah...mostly lots of money.

But I don't know enough about the R system to really make any review comments about it (good or bad). I usually like to use a camera system for a while before making any judgement. It took me months to like my M mirrorless camera system. I had to find workarounds and things to change in the menu. Once I had enough hands-on experience I was really pleased with it. I use them alternatively with my DSLR cameras.
 
Last edited:
nnowak said:
Trungtran only posted a link to the USA Amazon ranking as supposed proof the M system was not selling well. If you would like to compile all of your sources and present some more comprehensive information, that would be great.
Click to expand...
If we are to use just one source, BCN shows that the M50/KissM still sells well in Japan. That doesn't mean much either.
 
justmeMN said:
nnowak said:
Trungtran only posted a link to the USA Amazon ranking as supposed proof the M system was not selling well. If you would like to compile all of your sources and present some more comprehensive information, that would be great.
Click to expand...
If we are to use just one source, BCN shows that the M50/KissM still sells well in Japan. That doesn't mean much either.
Click to expand...
But not as well as it did in the past. If I remember correctly, the R10 has been ranked higher than the M50 II for the past couple months.
 
nnowak said:
m100 said:
I don't know ! Should I get a refurbished M6II for $549 or wait for the price to go lower on black Friday ?

Best M camera deal ever !
Click to expand...
I am not sure I would hold out for an even better price as supplies of the M6 II are starting to dry up in the US. B&H, for example, only has black kits with the 15-45mm available. All other options are sold out and listed as discontinued. Adorama has a few more options in stock, but they are listed as "closeout".
Click to expand...
That was my thought too. I just convinced my wife, and placed my order! 😁

I just can't talk myself into another system when the lenses I have are excellent and the M6ii finds a sweet spot between size, AF, performance, and price. (For a stills enthusiast like me)
  • Canon R - great AF, ergonomics, and incredible lenses... If you have deep pockets and don't mind big heavy gear. If both of those don't apply, then it's a compromise not an upgrade.
  • Fuji - tempting but with slower, less reliable AF and higher prices for equivalent lenses
  • Sony - great AF, tons of lens selection, but with camera bodies like bricks you just don't like to use
I realize this calculation is different for each person, so I certainly don't think my take on this "the right answer for every human." YMMV. Enjoy whatever gear you have and that makes the most sense to you!

I guess I'll be riding my M gear into the sunset after all. When it no longer works (2035?) maybe smartphones really will have taken over the world... 🤔
 
My apolgies to all Canon M users. My dislike of Canon prices are related to the new RF system. I do still have a 7d mkii which i think is superb. I also had at one time a M5 with a couple of lenses, all superb and at a good price. My rants of the full frame RF still stands.
 
Feigerou said:
And all I can think is... Seriously, Canon?!? I'm sure all that R gear is fantastic, but it's just so stupidly expensive.
Click to expand...
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.

Making the most of now buying a discounted M camera is a clever move. Lots of used M glass will be around the next decades. As long as the camera works you'll be fine.
 
thunder storm said:
Feigerou said:
And all I can think is... Seriously, Canon?!? I'm sure all that R gear is fantastic, but it's just so stupidly expensive.
Click to expand...
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.

Making the most of now buying a discounted M camera is a clever move. Lots of used M glass will be around the next decades. As long as the camera works you'll be fine.
Click to expand...
EF-M was a few lenses away from being everything I wanted in mirrorless. If Tamron (or Sigma) ever bothered to give them a fast zoom or if Canon ever made a proper f/4 standard zoom and something like the Sony G 70-350 (or Nikon 300mm f/4 PF), I would be shooting it today. Such wasted potential.
 
unhappymeal said:
thunder storm said:
Feigerou said:
And all I can think is... Seriously, Canon?!? I'm sure all that R gear is fantastic, but it's just so stupidly expensive.
Click to expand...
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.

Making the most of now buying a discounted M camera is a clever move. Lots of used M glass will be around the next decades. As long as the camera works you'll be fine.
Click to expand...
EF-M was a few lenses away from being everything I wanted in mirrorless.
Click to expand...
I'm still happy with the pictures I made with my M50, 18-35mm f/1.8 Art and the added speedlite + Gary Fong.
unhappymeal said:
If Tamron (or Sigma) ever bothered to give them a fast zoom or if Canon ever made a proper f/4 standard zoom and something like the Sony G 70-350 (or Nikon 300mm f/4 PF), I would be shooting it today. Such wasted potential.
Click to expand...
I agree with you in general, although the AF speed of the stm lenses was becoming an Achilles heel in my opinion. Ironically Canon is making the same mistake again with compact RF primes....
 
thunder storm said:
unhappymeal said:
EF-M was a few lenses away from being everything I wanted in mirrorless.
Click to expand...
I'm still happy with the pictures I made with my M50, 18-35mm f/1.8 Art and the added speedlite + Gary Fong.
thunder storm said:
If Tamron (or Sigma) ever bothered to give them a fast zoom or if Canon ever made a proper f/4 standard zoom and something like the Sony G 70-350 (or Nikon 300mm f/4 PF), I would be shooting it today. Such wasted potential.
Click to expand...
I agree with you in general, although the AF speed of the stm lenses was becoming an Achilles heel in my opinion. Ironically Canon is making the same mistake again with compact RF primes....
Click to expand...
I can completely agree with the STM. It's borderline criminal that they didn't give their halo lens, the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, an USM and OIS. At the end of the day, Canon is stingy. Canon shooters need to know they'll be eating the infamous hammer going in on non-L lenses.
 
unhappymeal said:
EF-M was a few lenses away from being everything I wanted in mirrorless. If Tamron (or Sigma) ever bothered to give them a fast zoom or if Canon ever made a proper f/4 standard zoom and something like the Sony G 70-350 (or Nikon 300mm f/4 PF), I would be shooting it today. Such wasted potential.
Click to expand...
1,000,000% agree with how close M came to being perfect. Just a couple more things and it would have been there. But that honestly ended up being its downfall. It was getting too good, and was too competitive with the 'budget' RF offerings.

The wildcard none of us could have foreseen was Covid, blowing up all the best laid plans just before when new M releases would have been expected. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon had plans to keep M going longer, but that forced their hand earlier than planned. We'll probably never really know....
 
Feigerou said:
unhappymeal said:
EF-M was a few lenses away from being everything I wanted in mirrorless. If Tamron (or Sigma) ever bothered to give them a fast zoom or if Canon ever made a proper f/4 standard zoom and something like the Sony G 70-350 (or Nikon 300mm f/4 PF), I would be shooting it today. Such wasted potential.
Click to expand...
1,000,000% agree with how close M came to being perfect. Just a couple more things and it would have been there. But that honestly ended up being its downfall. It was getting too good, and was too competitive with the 'budget' RF offerings.

The wildcard none of us could have foreseen was Covid, blowing up all the best laid plans just before when new M releases would have been expected. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon had plans to keep M going longer, but that forced their hand earlier than planned. We'll probably never really know....
Click to expand...
Yes, I think Canon was getting uncomfortable with the price-performance ratio that EF-M was offering.
 
thunder storm said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
nnowak said:
thunder storm said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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/im...full&widget=775&x=-0.212663859&y=-0.612035334

--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.
 
Last edited:
m100 said:
nnowak said:
thunder storm said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
m100 said:
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/im...full&widget=775&x=-0.212663859&y=-0.612035334
Click to expand...
 
nnowak said:
m100 said:
nnowak said:
thunder storm said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
nnowak said:
nnowak said:
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/im...full&widget=775&x=-0.212663859&y=-0.612035334
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
nnowak said:
m100 said:
nnowak said:
thunder storm said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
nnowak said:
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/im...full&widget=775&x=-0.212663859&y=-0.612035334
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That setup would be a bummer to carry around ! :)

Not something a spoiled M user would like !
 
MyM6II said:
nnowak said:
m100 said:
nnowak said:
thunder storm said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
So why can they use the RF 50mm F/1.2 on most of the FF R-mount cameras?
Click to expand...
It appears they have switched to the RF 85mm f/1.2 for newer cameras. When RF launched, there wasn't a 85mm option and the 50mm was the next best choice.
M4Mobility said:
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.)
Click to expand...
The EF 50mm f/1.4 is quite old, but it is still very sharp at f/5.6. I am pretty sure DPReview has been consistent in using the EF 50mm f/1.4 for every M camera. For the purposes of those sample images, either lens is more than sharp enough. The change in perspective from switching to the 32mm would be more problematic than the minor differences in sharpness.
M4Mobility said:
M4Mobility said:
M4Mobility said:
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/im...full&widget=775&x=-0.212663859&y=-0.612035334
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
thunder storm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Canon wants one lens mount, and high margins:

"As for operating profit, an increase in the proportion of sales attributable to
the highly profitable EOS R system of mirrorless cameras and lenses, increased
profitability to 18.0%."

- Canon financial document
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sinnbilder
What terrible decisions Canon marketing is capable of making
Replies
9
Views
6K
Sittatunga
S
G
Canon EF-M Series in 2025
2 3
Replies
48
Views
49K
toomix
T
C
Telephoto lens upgrade advice on EOS R7
2
Replies
24
Views
7K
Andy01
Andy01
M
Eos SL1 to R8 upgrade question/advice needed
Replies
17
Views
5K
Digirame
D
T
Upgrading is a slippery slope
2
Replies
36
Views
41K
MAC
MAC

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top