I'm in for the R50... Rationale?

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400).

What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

sorry, your obsession running these slow mediocre zooms on apsc is not what the M6II experience is about.

the M6II experience for most is about the F1.4 primes

oh, the RF-s catalogue has none of those, zero, nada

Canon has made the RF APSC experience for many about reach, wildlife, birding, sports, and putting more pixels on the subject

and for many we would be continually asking where is the 24 fov on the main zoom lens

RF 24-105/4-7.1 + R8 is far more appealing when running zooms

I think the R8 is going to take APS-C out of play for many considering, or currently using, Canon APS-C cameras.  It has for me.  I am going to be down to using the R8 and a smartphone sometime in the spring.

than mediocre RF-s zooms on APSC

.

Now I'm certain the R8 will be a winner, I am in no way knocking it. Anyone who is even remotely thinking of using and RF 35 f/1.8 or RF 85mm f/2 IS USM with it will be very pleased. And that RF 24-50 is no slouch, but reviewing it's results, they are, well, not L. It's neither a fantastic lens, nor a poor lens on reviewing it from an arm chair. But that too weighed on my calculus here.

.

Wish everyone the best of luck in their journeys and I'll report back on the R50 when it arrives. Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.