Poll, R mount and 3ed party lenses

sportyaccordy wrote:

MAC wrote:

Again, not a better all arounder. If you don't need 20 FPS or 10 bit video not sure what the R6 does better. Even for BIF the A7R3's MPs help with reach.

it is the R6II, not the R6 - try 40 fps

try a focus system modeled after a world class R3 focus

I would wager 40+MP is more useful than 40fps for most people. Most video isn't even recorded at 40fps.

24 mpxl of R6II is plenty - you, yourself have 24 mpxl

up to 40 fps - decisive moments when you need it

e-shutter - action shooting is quiet and rocks and doesn't degrade shutter life

your A7III (seems old in the tooth) and the lenses you have are really superior?

Body wise, sure my A7III and the A7R3 I want to replace it with are "old", but Canon RF has nothing that can replace either for the money.

R6II is just a tad more and blows both of those away

A7III, sure. A7R3, no.

slow to operate - it is ok for landscapes

10fps is slow? I don't even shoot at the full 10fps of my camera.

no, but

pro Canon shooters say it is the painful menus/buttons/ergonomics of this Sony that slows it down for pj shooting - A7IV seems to have the better ergonomics

Lens wise my lenses aren't amazing,

well, I have a few RF lenses I feel are amazing - my RF 24-105 F4L with nano focus and control ring set to ECC - best 24-105 ever made - I got mine 3 years ago for $899

I did like my RF 24-105 when I had it. My main gripe with it had nothing to do with the lens itself (I have learned over time that I like super zooms).

the RF 24-105 F4 L is likeable for sure

they also have the super zoom - RF24-240

It's a little heavy and slow compared to my current super zoom.

for me, I'll opt to carry RF 24-105 F4 L + RF 100-400 instead of one superzoom which only extends to 200 or 240 instead of 400

and I have the RF 85 F2 IS that can be had for $499.

I have the EF 100L which is amazing, and the RF 100L can be had for $999 and is even more amazing.

Dont see why you dont sell the RF 85 F2 IS & EF 100 for the RF100L; that seems to combine the best of both.

1) I use f2 for blur

2) I also use my 100L on m6II

Fair enough.

yep, my100L rocks on both my RP and my m6II and I only paid $700 for it

And for someone who wants a short tele that focuses faster than the RF 85/2 but can't afford the RF 100L.... go back to the 30 year old EF 85 1.8 I guess? Which loses some of the capabilities RF has to offer on something like an R6.

my sports lens instead is the 70-200 L

but again for the $3000 or so I'll be in for the A7R3 + current lenses, or $4000 or so for the A7R3, current lenses and an UWA, again RF doesn't have anything that matches on both the body + lens front.

In addition to my RF glass, I have great EF glass, so RF doesn't have to all be in place.

Weirdly I think Nikon has a comparable kit for the $$$ as well so Canon RF is kind of the odd man out for me.

EF supplements until the RF roadmap is mature

Its not so much about the roadmap maturing as much as there being some better choices in certain instances. For example Canon never made a decent EF 50mm outside of the macro.

true - that is why I have the great m32 f1.4 on m6II

Having to carry lenses and bodies across 3 different systems speaks to my point......

my RP and m6II share the same batteries, flash triggers, EF lenses

the m6II + 32 is small enough together it is like a rangefinder

And even there updates were glacial. So RF 50 1.8 is probably their budget 50 for the next decade plus. They never updated the EF 85 1.8 (though admittedly they got that mostly right for the digital age). So the RF 85/2 IS is probably it for a budget RF 85.

true - but there are ef options

So it's all good if you like what Canon has to offer

I like what they have to offer so far and will continue to give them a chance to develop more

but a lot of people don't.

in a seriously shrinking market, losing lens sales to 3rd party becomes "serious"

we shall see who survives

Indeed.

imo - the sony A7IV + tamy 35-150 f2/2.8 would be a substantial update for you to consider that Canon doesn't have