nnowak wrote:
rz64 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.
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"?
The point, which you seem to have missed is that even though the R10 might not be appealing to current M users, people are buying the R10
What should be the reason to buy the R10? Because of two mediocre zoom lenses?
It is Canon's cheapest camera with full sensor oversampled 4k and DPAF. Paired with the RF 100-400mm is it one of the cheapest options for long reach.
Giving 24Mp aps-c + non L zoom IQ + unavoidable diffraction. If that floats your boat >> get the R10. What's the meaning of "reach" when the sharpness suffers that much? The R5 will give almost the same amount of detail in crop mode with that lens. Does it have less reach doing so? Does it have less reach in full frame mode?
Cutting of the borders and the optical detail those borders contain isn't the same as reach, sorry.
The design is very familiar to an existing DSLR user
The "it's bigger so it should be better" assumption.
while offering significant improvements over a DSLR. It is built using a mount that Canon is dedicated to supporting long term.
For those users it's probably more about backwards compatibility with existing lenses when it comes to sensor size rather than future compatibility of the mount. If they would worry about long term support they should worry about Canon supporting dedicated aps-c glass in the long term. This is the third time Canon starts all over again, and the first two trials (ef-s + M) where never completed, while the future market demand has less room for aps-c products anyway.
Want more?
Yes: Sustainability for aps-c please, that would be nice for too big camera's with future oriented mounts. Future mount, ancient sensor size, not so rosy prospects for RF-s glass. That's the R10.
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".
It took Canon six years to get to a total of eight M lenses.
1. That was too slow for M so it's a poor reference, and will definitely be too slow for a sunsetting sensor size.
2. That line up was complete only if it's all about compactness, and no requirements for AF speed. RF-s is not all about compactness, and AF speed matters, so the task is a bit harder here.
RF-S is not even six months old.
If it's all about giving current ef-s lenses mirrorless AF it's probably complete already. If it pretends to be more Canon should hurry up. Canon should have released those bodies with at least one f/1.4 prime in the 22-35mm range. Just one acceptable zoom (and that horrible 18-45mm) isn't a very promising start.....
The two RF-S lenses that have launched are at the same price as the comparable EF-M lenses.
That's definitely not true in my market.
-- hide signature --
45 is more than enough, but 500.000 isn't
