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

thunder storm wrote:

RLight wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

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.

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

than mediocre RF-s zooms on APSC

Oh yeah, R8 + 24-105mm stm any day! Need reach? 24-240mm.

On 24Mp crop sensors the 18-35mm f/1.8 Art (@f/2.5 or so) is the only zoom being able to squeeze everything out of such a sensor. Everything else is so so. My A7IV + 28-60mm combo @ f/7.1 beats it, same range, way more compact, oh, and IBIS.

But if a slow aps-c zoom + updated jpg-engine makes you happy >> buy it! Everything making you happy is a good thing.

In this case Canon just has a better option available to me than previous, that’s all. Sony is maturing but I don’t know of a FF system that compares to M or RF-S once you consider a 55-200 or 55-210.

I think it's perfectly possible to get the same field of view range and the same equivalent aperture in the same small package for full frame camera. The FE 28-60mm is pretty much the same design as the RF-s 18-45mm. I guess there's simply no market for it though, as full frame sensors have less mercy with these kind of lenses. The RF 100-400mm is - at least up to 300mm - a pretty nice and pretty affordable lens, and maybe a little bit bigger bag is simply worth it's IQ. It's bigger, sure. But it's not big.

The R50 has an advantage over the M50: You can finally mount the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 to your crop camera. Just so nice to have that mount compatibility. Finally. Thank you, Canon.

yeah, but he's buying into two RF-s lenses that make little sense to mount on his R3

Instead, the $1699 R8 kit + 595 g. pop can sized $1399 RF 70-200 F4 makes more sense to me than where he is going

That’s where FF gets you. Unless somebody does a something to 300mm zoom with diffraction optics. Really the R50 represents a successor to the M50 which I loved, but hated the misses. If this fixes that? Yes, happy. Should it fail to? (Which I haven’t ruled out) it goes back. I suspect it won’t fail though, I think. The readout speed gives me pause, but I never saw this sort of thing with the R or RP, which also have slow readout. Lead screw stm, EFCS and DIGICX? It’s probably fine. We’ll see.