Seriously, Canon?

nnowak said:

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.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

When RF launched, there wasn't a 85mm option and the 50mm was the next best choice.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

nnowak 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.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

For the purposes of those sample images, either lens is more than sharp enough.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

The change in perspective from switching to the 32mm would be more problematic than the minor differences in sharpness.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

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...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

brent1395 said:

So are there any M bodies left that haven’t been discontinued?

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...

MyM6II said:

nnowak said:

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.

Click to expand...

But they did not switch for the RP, R6 and R5.

Click to expand...

M4Mobility said:

M4Mobility said:

When RF launched, there wasn't a 85mm option and the 50mm was the next best choice.

Click to expand...

Not correct. EF 85mm F/1.8 USM !!! That should be good enough, if the EF 50mm is good enough for the M cameras.

Click to expand...

M4Mobility said:

Only the R (and Ra) was released before the RF 85mm, but they continued to use the 50mm.

Click to expand...

M4Mobility said:

M4Mobility said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is not very representative for the M system. Especially when a much better EF-M 32mm lens exist.

Click to expand...

M4Mobility said:

M4Mobility said:

For the purposes of those sample images, either lens is more than sharp enough.

Click to expand...

Better to use the native one that is built for the system. I don't think the EF lens is as good as the 32mm.

Click to expand...

M4Mobility said:

M4Mobility said:

The change in perspective from switching to the 32mm would be more problematic than the minor differences in sharpness.

Click to expand...

Yes, the sample images taken with the RF 50mm on the R cameras are really really problematic !

M4Mobility said:

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...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

MyM6II said:

nnowak said:

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.

Click to expand...

But they did not switch for the RP, R6 and R5.

Click to expand...

They switched for the 2021 R3

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

When RF launched, there wasn't a 85mm option and the 50mm was the next best choice.

Click to expand...

Not correct. EF 85mm F/1.8 USM !!! That should be good enough, if the EF 50mm is good enough for the M cameras.

Click to expand...

I am guessing DPReveiw preferred to stick with a native RF lens.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

Only the R (and Ra) was released before the RF 85mm, but they continued to use the 50mm.

Click to expand...

Maybe DPReview did not want to spend $2600 on the 85mm f/1.2 right after spending $2100 on the 50mm f/1.2.

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

nnowak 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.

Click to expand...

It is not very representative for the M system. Especially when a much better EF-M 32mm lens exist.

Click to expand...

All of the testing is at f/5.6. The differences between the lenses are completely negligible at that aperture.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

If they were testing at f/1.4 it would be a completely different story. The samples are not meant to be representative of the "system", but instead to highlight image sensor and JPEG engine differences.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

For the purposes of those sample images, either lens is more than sharp enough.

Click to expand...

Better to use the native one that is built for the system. I don't think the EF lens is as good as the 32mm.

Click to expand...

Not at f/1.4 but more than close enough at f/5.6

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

The change in perspective from switching to the 32mm would be more problematic than the minor differences in sharpness.

Click to expand...

Yes, the sample images taken with the RF 50mm on the R cameras are really really problematic !

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

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...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MyM6II said:

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...

If that turns out to be the truth, then I am finished with Canon for good when it comes to buying new products. I agree that maybe for Canon it is too capable and a too good competitor to their stupid priced and stupid sized RF-s cameras. If they want to sell more than a few of these cameras (R10 etc), they can not have this great affordable system (M) existing at the same time. And with no new M bodies, there will be no new bodies that Sigma & Samyang etc. can make lenses for. (Maybe that is another reason for Canon.)

Canon does not want the money I have saved for buying new M bodies and/or lenses, it seems. So they will soon find its way to a different manufacturer. I can't spend more money on companies that act (or maybe I should say; don't act) like this. Sorry. No, I'm not sorry, I am angry.

Click to expand...

MyM6II said:

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...

If that turns out to be the truth, then I am finished with Canon for good when it comes to buying new products. I agree that maybe for Canon it is too capable and a too good competitor to their stupid priced and stupid sized RF-s cameras. If they want to sell more than a few of these cameras (R10 etc), they can not have this great affordable system (M) existing at the same time. And with no new M bodies, there will be no new bodies that Sigma & Samyang etc. can make lenses for. (Maybe that is another reason for Canon.)

Canon does not want the money I have saved for buying new M bodies and/or lenses, it seems. So they will soon find its way to a different manufacturer. I can't spend more money on companies that act (or maybe I should say; don't act) like this. Sorry. No, I'm not sorry, I am angry.

Click to expand...

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...

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.

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

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.

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.

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...

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,

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

the M50 and M50 II have been in the top 5 for multiple consecutive years.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

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.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

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.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

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...

thunder storm said:

nnowak said:

I was with you until you got to the conspiracy theories. Reality just does not agree with you. On the Japanese BCN rankings,

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

thunder storm said:

the M50 and M50 II have been in the top 5 for multiple consecutive years.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

thunder storm said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

Click to expand...

MyM6II said:

Canon does not want the money I have saved for buying new M bodies and/or lenses, it seems. So they will soon find its way to a different manufacturer. I can't spend more money on companies that act (or maybe I should say; don't act) like this. Sorry. No, I'm not sorry, I am angry.

Click to expand...

justmeMN said:

MyM6II said:

Canon does not want the money I have saved for buying new M bodies and/or lenses, it seems. So they will soon find its way to a different manufacturer. I can't spend more money on companies that act (or maybe I should say; don't act) like this. Sorry. No, I'm not sorry, I am angry.

Click to expand...

Nikon discontinued Nikon 1.

Sony discontinued A-mount.

It happens...

Click to expand...

justmeMN said:

MyM6II said:

Canon does not want the money I have saved for buying new M bodies and/or lenses, it seems. So they will soon find its way to a different manufacturer. I can't spend more money on companies that act (or maybe I should say; don't act) like this. Sorry. No, I'm not sorry, I am angry.

Click to expand...

Nikon discontinued Nikon 1.

Sony discontinued A-mount.

It happens...

Click to expand...

MyM6II said:

thunder storm said:

nnowak said:

I was with you until you got to the conspiracy theories. Reality just does not agree with you. On the Japanese BCN rankings,

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

M4Mobility said:

the M50 and M50 II have been in the top 5 for multiple consecutive years.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

M4Mobility said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

Click to expand...

Lol. Just show him the BCN rankings from the last week of October 2022. I think it is very funny actually. What excuses will he come up with now do you think?





THE EOS M6 Mark II is taking the lead (again). Walking dead !

Click to expand...

thunder storm 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,

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

the M50 and M50 II have been in the top 5 for multiple consecutive years.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's nonsense. There are more ways to get enough profit.

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

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...

To your point, a lot of customers might be stupid enough to buy an uninteresting camera. That said, Japanese numbers alone doesn't prove anything.

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

--
45 is more than enough, but 500.000 isn't

Click to expand...

MyM6II said:

thunder storm said:

nnowak said:

I was with you until you got to the conspiracy theories. Reality just does not agree with you. On the Japanese BCN rankings,

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

M4Mobility said:

the M50 and M50 II have been in the top 5 for multiple consecutive years.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

M4Mobility said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

Click to expand...

Lol. Just show him the BCN rankings from the last week of October 2022. I think it is very funny actually. What excuses will he come up with now do you think?

Click to expand...

M4Mobility said:

THE EOS M6 Mark II is taking the lead (again). Walking dead !

Click to expand...

KEG said:

MyM6II said:

thunder storm said:

nnowak said:

I was with you until you got to the conspiracy theories. Reality just does not agree with you. On the Japanese BCN rankings,

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

KEG said:

the M50 and M50 II have been in the top 5 for multiple consecutive years.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

KEG said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can remember several posts of yours stating Japanese numbers aren't representative for this whole universe when it was about the popularity of the M50.....

Click to expand...

Lol. Just show him the BCN rankings from the last week of October 2022. I think it is very funny actually. What excuses will he come up with now do you think?





THE EOS M6 Mark II is taking the lead (again). Walking dead !

Click to expand...

Not surprising, this is the best camera $ for $ available.

Click to expand...

rz64 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...

I would indeed support the opinion of thunder storm: "Canon kills M because it's too capable for its price".

It is you who is - once more - spreading conspiracy theories. Where does your conclusion, that the R10 "appears to be well received by the masses", come from? Just because it has been in the top 5 "for the last two months"?

What should be the reason to buy the R10? Because of two mediocre zoom lenses?
Where are comparable (to EF-M) native RF-S lenses? If they will come, it will be as thunder has written: "Canon wants you to pay more for getting less".

Click to expand...