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

thunder storm · Feb 28, 2023

R2D2 said:
RLight said:

If I were most people, the R8 would be on my short list. Don’t hear what I’m not saying… This is a 2nd camera, not a first.

Btw, a used R10 is a good value. I’m after ultimate portability and that twin lens combo seals the deal where it can’t be beat if you want the 55-210, which I do, and I don’t already have the 18-45, and want it, I do. The R8 is the star of the show, I’m just picking up Canons side thought that fit my need.

Click to expand...

That’s what’s important here: Assessing your own needs and then picking the appropriate camera to fill that need. And Canon is giving us all sorts of choices!

R2D2 said:

Pardon my being blunt but the R50 seems to me like Canon conceding as I’m aware the R10 isn’t the seller they thought, or maybe it was…

Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s it at all. The R10 is an amazingly capable camera in its own right, and is simply aimed at a different “demographic.”

What Canon is doing here is providing us with options that span the Entire Marketplace. Literally flooding it. And all of these cameras are tied together

well.... we have crop 3 kit zooms, no crop primes, no wide angle AF options, and amongst the full frame RF lenses there are only a few primes compact enough to go well with compact RF-s bodies....

R2D2 said:
by the new library of RF lenses, and the game-changer which is DIGIC X (and all of the capabilities that this core technology gives to such a wide assortment of camera models).

...and those compact primes don't come with fast AF so they can't unlock the full AF potential of those DIGIC X processors. The RF 24mm f/1.8 is also pretty expensive compared to ef-m 22mm f/2.0, and it's a whole lot less compact too.

R2D2 said:
They’re all winners, to somebody here.

This hugely successful business model (of flooding the market with variations) has been applied by businesses of all types throughout history. One just needs to go to the grocery store to see it in action. Check the laundry detergent aisle, or soda pop, or cereal aisles. How about the exploding “sports drink” section?!

A success of a business model for a company isn't the same as a success for customers who bought into the stuff of that company. Ask owners of the ef-m 32mm f/1.4 not being able to pair that lens to a body with DIGIC X processors.

R2D2 said:
I think that we are each going to benefit from Canon’s business model here, as we make our individual choices (now and in the future).

You can't choose non existing options, so no benefits there, at least not for the customer. Yeah, lots of RF-s bodies, but no porting over of the ef-m 32mm f/1.4 or giving an 80ish or 90ish field of view portrait RF-s lens. The RF 50mm f/1.8 stm on crop is a huge step back compared to the Sigma 56mm f/1.4. What's even worse is the 85mm field of view options for full frame. Where's the compact f/1.4 with fast AF? And why is Canon avoiding third party manufacturers to produce it while at the same time refusing to produce it themselves? We're spoiled for choice? I don't think so.

R2D2 said:
I feel that they (and we) are truly poised for success.

Canon might have success with their strategy. The customer will pay for it. DIGIC X at a bargain? Great. Lenses unlocking the full capabilities? Not really bargains looking at the prices of L zooms (zooms, as primes - except the too long on crop135mm - don't come with fast AF at all). Great strategy for Canon. Not so great for customers.

Another thing not so great for customers is the selectively cr*ppling of AF with the f/11 primes. If you own a top of the line R5 body you won't get 80%*80% AF coverage with those primes. At the release of those f/11 primes it seemed it was a spec of these primes. But with the release of the R6mkII and even relatively low end R8 it becomes clear it's technically perfectly possible give that full 80%*80% AF coverage on that R5 as well, but we don't get a firmware update for this. Note: we're talking native brand and native RF mount lenses here and a top of the line body. May I ask you: What on earth is the success for the customer with these kind of nasty tricks?

That said, customers have their own responsibility to check if the get what they pay for. And a lot of customers don't really do that. Most customers think about what body to buy without considering what lenses they need. Canon knows this, and takes advantage of that stupidity.

If you're a pro shooting mainly $$$$$ L zooms you'll be fine. If you're happy with the R50 + kit lens only you'll be fine too. In between are the sink holes of the RF mount. Beware of the gaps.

R2D2 said:
R2

--

koenkooi · Feb 28, 2023

thunder storm said:
[…]Another thing not so great for customers is the selectively cr*ppling of AF with the f/11 primes. If you own a top of the line R5 body you won't get 80%*80% AF coverage with those primes. At the release of those f/11 primes it seemed it was a spec of these primes. But with the release of the R6mkII and even relatively low end R8 it becomes clear it's technically perfectly possible give that full 80%*80% AF coverage on that R5 as well, but we don't get a firmware update for this. […]

You are implying that a sensor that is 3 years newer cannot have any hardware improvements over the older one and all the improvements are just firmware. I’m not cynical enough yet to believe that.

I strongly suspect that Canon did the same thing they did last time when they expanded the AF area: tweak the microlens array.
The R and RP didn’t have full AF coverage, the R5 and R6 did.

MAC · Feb 28, 2023

thunder storm said:
R2D2 said:

RLight said:

If I were most people, the R8 would be on my short list. Don’t hear what I’m not saying… This is a 2nd camera, not a first.

Btw, a used R10 is a good value. I’m after ultimate portability and that twin lens combo seals the deal where it can’t be beat if you want the 55-210, which I do, and I don’t already have the 18-45, and want it, I do. The R8 is the star of the show, I’m just picking up Canons side thought that fit my need.

Click to expand...

That’s what’s important here: Assessing your own needs and then picking the appropriate camera to fill that need. And Canon is giving us all sorts of choices!

thunder storm said:

Pardon my being blunt but the R50 seems to me like Canon conceding as I’m aware the R10 isn’t the seller they thought, or maybe it was…

Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s it at all. The R10 is an amazingly capable camera in its own right, and is simply aimed at a different “demographic.”

What Canon is doing here is providing us with options that span the Entire Marketplace. Literally flooding it. And all of these cameras are tied together

Click to expand...

well.... we have crop 3 kit zooms, no crop primes, no wide angle AF options, and amongst the full frame RF lenses there are only a few primes compact enough to go well with compact RF-s bodies....

hmm, harsh, but true

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

by the new library of RF lenses, and the game-changer which is DIGIC X (and all of the capabilities that this core technology gives to such a wide assortment of camera models).

Click to expand...

...and those compact primes don't come with fast AF so they can't unlock the full AF potential of those DIGIC X processors. The RF 24mm f/1.8 is also pretty expensive compared to ef-m 22mm f/2.0, and it's a whole lot less compact too.

ouch, true again...piling on true

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

They’re all winners, to somebody here.

This hugely successful business model (of flooding the market with variations) has been applied by businesses of all types throughout history. One just needs to go to the grocery store to see it in action. Check the laundry detergent aisle, or soda pop, or cereal aisles. How about the exploding “sports drink” section?!

Click to expand...

A success of a business model for a company isn't the same as a success for customers who bought into the stuff of that company. Ask owners of the ef-m 32mm f/1.4 not being able to pair that lens to a body with DIGIC X processors.

the 32 f1.4 for the price is one of the best lenses they have ever made - and shows what small can do

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

I think that we are each going to benefit from Canon’s business model here, as we make our individual choices (now and in the future).

Click to expand...

You can't choose non existing options, so no benefits there, at least not for the customer. Yeah, lots of RF-s bodies, but no porting over of the ef-m 32mm f/1.4 or giving an 80ish or 90ish field of view portrait RF-s lens. The RF 50mm f/1.8 stm on crop is a huge step back compared to the Sigma 56mm f/1.4. What's even worse is the 85mm field of view options for full frame. Where's the compact f/1.4 with fast AF? And why is Canon avoiding third party manufacturers to produce it while at the same time refusing to produce it themselves?

I don't think they know how to build a small fast motor prime like the sony 50 f1.4 yet - they need to learn quick though on the 50 and the 85

digic 10 needs to keep up with their premium wide open 50 and 85

thunder storm said:
We're spoiled for choice? I don't think so.

on bodies, yes, on lenses, not yet

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

I feel that they (and we) are truly poised for success.

Click to expand...

Canon might have success with their strategy. The customer will pay for it. DIGIC X at a bargain? Great. Lenses unlocking the full capabilities? Not really bargains looking at the prices of L zooms (zooms, as primes - except the too long on crop135mm - don't come with fast AF at all). Great strategy for Canon. Not so great for customers.

my L zoom sure has gone up in price

thunder storm said:
Another thing not so great for customers is the selectively cr*ppling of AF with the f/11 primes. If you own a top of the line R5 body you won't get 80%*80% AF coverage with those primes. At the release of those f/11 primes it seemed it was a spec of these primes. But with the release of the R6mkII and even relatively low end R8 it becomes clear it's technically perfectly possible give that full 80%*80% AF coverage on that R5 as well, but we don't get a firmware update for this.

not sure they will

thunder storm said:
Note: we're talking native brand and native RF mount lenses here and a top of the line body.

R5II will have it

thunder storm said:
May I ask you: What on earth is the success for the customer with these kind of nasty tricks?

maybe there is a physical issue

thunder storm said:
That said, customers have their own responsibility to check if the get what they pay for. And a lot of customers don't really do that. Most customers think about what body to buy without considering what lenses they need. Canon knows this, and takes advantage of that stupidity.

we're still in the dawn of the RF mount - need to give them a chance

thunder storm said:
If you're a pro shooting mainly $$$$$ L zooms you'll be fine.

absolutely - top notch L zooms

thunder storm said:
If you're happy with the R50 + kit lens only you'll be fine too.

yuk

thunder storm said:
In between are the sink holes of the RF mount. Beware of the gaps.

I've decided to live with gaps - but one thing for sure, Canon is getting me to open up my wallet for that new R8 - I didn't expect that they would give me something I wanted so soon after the RP

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

R2

Click to expand...

Alastair Norcross · Feb 28, 2023

RLight said:
Btw, a used R10 is a good value. I’m after ultimate portability and that twin lens combo seals the deal where it can’t be beat if you want the 55-210, which I do, and I don’t already have the 18-45, and want it, I do. The R8 is the star of the show, I’m just picking up Canons side thought that fit my needs… Pardon my being blunt but the R50 seems to me like Canon conceding as I’m aware the R10 isn’t the seller they thought, or maybe it was…

That is just silly. The R50 was announced 9 months after the R10 was announced, and about 7 months after the R10 was generally available. It takes a lot more time than that to design, test, and announce a camera. Canon obviously had the R50 well into development long before the R10 was even announced. It's not a reaction to anything to do with the R10, but was always planned.

R2D2 · Feb 28, 2023

MAC said:
we're still in the dawn of the RF mount - need to give them a chance

This says it all of course.

R2

justmeMN · Feb 28, 2023

MAC said:
MAC said:

That said, customers have their own responsibility to check if the get what they pay for. And a lot of customers don't really do that. Most customers think about what body to buy without considering what lenses they need. Canon knows this, and takes advantage of that stupidity.

Click to expand...

we're still in the dawn of the RF mount - need to give them a chance

From a Canon Strategy document:

Source: Canon

thunder storm · Mar 1, 2023

R2D2 said:
MAC said:

we're still in the dawn of the RF mount - need to give them a chance

Click to expand...

This says it all of course.

R2

When talking about a high quality Canon 50mm f/1.4 we're still in the dawn of the EF mount if not FD mount.

MAC · Mar 2, 2023

thunder storm said:
R2D2 said:

MAC said:

we're still in the dawn of the RF mount - need to give them a chance

Click to expand...

This says it all of course.

R2

Click to expand...

When talking about a high quality Canon 50mm f/1.4 we're still in the dawn of the EF mount if not FD mount.

touché

but

Chris - he would choose the R6II over the A74 if he were shooting sports and action - he says the subject action AF keeps up with the 40 fps...AMAZING. He says he'd chose the A74 for slower general photography for the slightly higher resolution and 3rd party support. For video, Jordon likes the R6II over the A74 for reasons stated here:

Canon EOS R6 Mark II Final Review - YouTube

if using the great zooms with great AF - canon is hard to beat with speed, AF action and pj work

though those lens AF motors are impressive and the small size is impressive with your A74, the speed of the sony body and af acquisition in low light for zooms lags behind

the big picture - a camera alone cannot take a shot. A lens alone cannot take a shot. It takes the combo. Everything has its compromises including price. Looking at the R8/R6II galleries here, the RF 85 F2IS and RF 24-105 F4L will work very well for me. And if I need 50 fov, the M6II + 32 f1.4 with spot focus has not let me down

yes I'd like a RF 50 f1.4 with speedy AF motors for action. But I also want the speed and price and size of an R8

to each their own - and as Chris said, there is not a bad choice between the Sony and the Canon

thunder storm · Mar 2, 2023

MAC said:
thunder storm said:

R2D2 said:

MAC said:

we're still in the dawn of the RF mount - need to give them a chance

Click to expand...

This says it all of course.

R2

Click to expand...

When talking about a high quality Canon 50mm f/1.4 we're still in the dawn of the EF mount if not FD mount.

Click to expand...

touché

but

Chris - he would choose the R6II over the A74 if he were shooting sports and action - he says the subject action AF keeps up with the 40 fps...AMAZING.

40 fps.... that's a movie. Full automatic culling required...

MAC said:
He says he'd chose the A74 for slower general photography for the slightly higher resolution and 3rd party support. For video, Jordon likes the R6II over the A74 for reasons stated here:

Canon EOS R6 Mark II Final Review - YouTube

if using the great zooms with great AF - canon is hard to beat with speed, AF action and pj work

True. You'll have to pay for those zooms, but a body like the R8 makes the overall package a somewhat better deal. The downside: a good value for money body is worse than good value for money glass, as most shooters have multiple lenses and just one body. There's a reason Canon is discounting bodies but maintaining high prices for lenses.

MAC said:
though those lens AF motors are impressive and the small size is impressive with your A74, the speed of the sony body and af acquisition in low light for zooms lags behind

True as well. I'm not selling the R5 + EF 24-70 f/2.8 mkII. The R8 + RF version might be even better for low light AF, but the R5 + EF version is good enough for my needs when it comes to low light AF and AF for fast moving subjects as well. Canon simply wins here, no question.

MAC said:
the big picture - a camera alone cannot take a shot. A lens alone cannot take a shot. It takes the combo. Everything has its compromises including price. Looking at the R8/R6II galleries here, the RF 85 F2IS and RF 24-105 F4L will work very well for me.

You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse. The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe). For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

It would be interesting to compare the A7IV & 50mm f/1.2 GM to the R8 + RF 50mm f/1.2 L for low light AF. Faster read out speed, better algorithms and a faster processor, it all helps, however, it can't provide more torque to the AF motors at some point.

MAC said:
And if I need 50 fov, the M6II + 32 f1.4 with spot focus has not let me down

What if Chris had evaluated the AF of the A7IV and R6II using spot focus AF? ;-)

MAC said:
yes I'd like a RF 50 f1.4 with speedy AF motors for action. But I also want the speed and price and size of an R8

The price of the R8 is good, but for true low light work an f/2.8 zoom is still beneficial, and at that point the high price of the zoom will compensate Canon for the low price of the R8.

MAC said:
to each their own - and as Chris said, there is not a bad choice between the Sony and the Canon

Look, if Canon comes up with both an RF 50mm f/1.4 ÜUSM and RF 85mm f/1.4 ÜUSM I'll simply sell the A7VI. But you and I know Canon won't ever come up with these lenses, so I'm sticking with the A7IV.

MAC · Mar 2, 2023

thunder storm said:
MAC said:

thunder storm said:

R2D2 said:

MAC said:

we're still in the dawn of the RF mount - need to give them a chance

Click to expand...

This says it all of course.

R2

Click to expand...

When talking about a high quality Canon 50mm f/1.4 we're still in the dawn of the EF mount if not FD mount.

Click to expand...

touché

but

Chris - he would choose the R6II over the A74 if he were shooting sports and action - he says the subject action AF keeps up with the 40 fps...AMAZING.

Click to expand...

40 fps.... that's a movie. Full automatic culling required...

faststone is your friend

I'll likely use 20 fps mostly

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

He says he'd chose the A74 for slower general photography for the slightly higher resolution and 3rd party support. For video, Jordon likes the R6II over the A74 for reasons stated here:

Canon EOS R6 Mark II Final Review - YouTube

if using the great zooms with great AF - canon is hard to beat with speed, AF action and pj work

Click to expand...

True. You'll have to pay for those zooms, but a body like the R8 makes the overall package a somewhat better deal. The downside: a good value for money body is worse than good value for money glass, as most shooters have multiple lenses and just one body. There's a reason Canon is discounting bodies but maintaining high prices for lenses.

And Sony isn't cheaper.

Canon's RF 24-70 is currently $100 less than Sony's

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

though those lens AF motors are impressive and the small size is impressive with your A74, the speed of the sony body and af acquisition in low light for zooms lags behind

Click to expand...

True as well. I'm not selling the R5 + EF 24-70 f/2.8 mkII. The R8 + RF version might be even better for low light AF, but the R5 + EF version is good enough for my needs when it comes to low light AF and AF for fast moving subjects as well. Canon simply wins here, no question.

yep

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

the big picture - a camera alone cannot take a shot. A lens alone cannot take a shot. It takes the combo. Everything has its compromises including price. Looking at the R8/R6II galleries here, the RF 85 F2IS and RF 24-105 F4L will work very well for me.

Click to expand...

You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse.

Both Sony and Canon charge the same amount for this zoom

thunder storm said:
The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe).

well, one can shift to a zoom if shooting action, the RF85 F2 IS handles pedestrian motion

thunder storm said:
For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

Sure, but at significant higher costs

thunder storm said:
It would be interesting to compare the A7IV & 50mm f/1.2 GM to the R8 + RF 50mm f/1.2 L for low light AF. Faster read out speed, better algorithms and a faster processor, it all helps, however, it can't provide more torque to the AF motors at some point.

and 2-4 times faster fps - certainly will get some hits

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

And if I need 50 fov, the M6II + 32 f1.4 with spot focus has not let me down

Click to expand...

What if Chris had evaluated the AF of the A7IV and R6II using spot focus AF? ;-)

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

yes I'd like a RF 50 f1.4 with speedy AF motors for action. But I also want the speed and price and size of an R8

Click to expand...

The price of the R8 is good, but for true low light work an f/2.8 zoom is still beneficial, and at that point the high price of the zoom will compensate Canon for the low price of the R8.

ahh, but again, look at Sony's similar lens pricing

thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:

to each their own - and as Chris said, there is not a bad choice between the Sony and the Canon

Click to expand...

Look, if Canon comes up with both an RF 50mm f/1.4 ÜUSM and RF 85mm f/1.4 ÜUSM I'll simply sell the A7VI. But you and I know Canon won't ever come up with these lenses, so I'm sticking with the A7IV.

your 50 and 85 are great

but I think for action, your 24-70 is great too

LennyLevino · Mar 3, 2023

thunder storm said:
You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse. The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe). For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

A7iv + Sigma 1.4 costs almost twice as much ($3698 vs $1998). For a more fair comparison (in terms of price), it should be the R8 + RF 85mm f1.2 ($3998).

MAC · Mar 3, 2023

LennyLevino said:
LennyLevino said:

You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse. The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe). For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

Click to expand...

A7iv + Sigma 1.4 costs almost twice as much ($3698 vs $1998). For a more fair comparison (in terms of price), it should be the R8 + RF 85mm f1.2 ($3998).

well, there is the lack of a full mechanical shutter on the R8 that can cause bokeh clipping at f1.2/f1.4 in strong light

If I were going to invest in a heavy RF 85 F1.2, I would have bought a more capable R6II body

and Storm makes a good case for getting the Siggy 85 f1.4 DN and Sony 50 F1.4/F1.2 with great focus motor speed and being smaller with A74 body over the large Canon flagship RF 50/85 L's - if these primes are your thing

but my thing is to run with nano focus speed on my RF 24-105 F4L with -3.2 EV focus acquisition on an R8 that will focus in moonlight and then to use the best in class AI noise redux of dxo PL6

- and supplement with less expensive primes when necessary

CamerEyes · Mar 3, 2023

RLight said:
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.

.

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.

Your rationale is, well, rational. I say go for it.

I too am looking forward to having the R50 in my hands. I might give up on my smallest camera at the moment - the Sony A7C - if the R50 proves as capable as the R10 in the image quality department. It will be a hard discussion, since the A7C is FF with gorgeous dynamic range and high ISO noise.

koenkooi · Mar 3, 2023

MAC said:
LennyLevino said:

MAC said:

You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse. The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe). For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

Click to expand...

A7iv + Sigma 1.4 costs almost twice as much ($3698 vs $1998). For a more fair comparison (in terms of price), it should be the R8 + RF 85mm f1.2 ($3998).

Click to expand...

well, there is the lack of a full mechanical shutter on the R8 that can cause bokeh clipping at f1.2/f1.4 in strong light [...]

Use the electronic shutter

But more seriously, the RF85 f/1.2 delivered great results mounted on my RP, even with clipped bokeh.

I can very well understand that if you own the RF85 f/1.2 you're going to want to get the most out of it, so no EFCS. Which leaves using a 12-bit e-shutter or paying more for a body with a fully mechanical shutter.

thunder storm · Mar 3, 2023

MAC said:
thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

R2D2 said:

MAC said:

we're still in the dawn of the RF mount - need to give them a chance

Click to expand...

This says it all of course.

R2

Click to expand...

When talking about a high quality Canon 50mm f/1.4 we're still in the dawn of the EF mount if not FD mount.

Click to expand...

touché

but

Chris - he would choose the R6II over the A74 if he were shooting sports and action - he says the subject action AF keeps up with the 40 fps...AMAZING.

Click to expand...

40 fps.... that's a movie. Full automatic culling required...

Click to expand...

faststone is your friend

I'll likely use 20 fps mostly

MAC said:

MAC said:

He says he'd chose the A74 for slower general photography for the slightly higher resolution and 3rd party support. For video, Jordon likes the R6II over the A74 for reasons stated here:

Canon EOS R6 Mark II Final Review - YouTube

if using the great zooms with great AF - canon is hard to beat with speed, AF action and pj work

Click to expand...

True. You'll have to pay for those zooms, but a body like the R8 makes the overall package a somewhat better deal. The downside: a good value for money body is worse than good value for money glass, as most shooters have multiple lenses and just one body. There's a reason Canon is discounting bodies but maintaining high prices for lenses.

Click to expand...

And Sony isn't cheaper.

FE options are.

MAC said:
Canon's RF 24-70 is currently $100 less than Sony's

MAC said:

MAC said:

though those lens AF motors are impressive and the small size is impressive with your A74, the speed of the sony body and af acquisition in low light for zooms lags behind

Click to expand...

True as well. I'm not selling the R5 + EF 24-70 f/2.8 mkII. The R8 + RF version might be even better for low light AF, but the R5 + EF version is good enough for my needs when it comes to low light AF and AF for fast moving subjects as well. Canon simply wins here, no question.

Click to expand...

yep

MAC said:

MAC said:

the big picture - a camera alone cannot take a shot. A lens alone cannot take a shot. It takes the combo. Everything has its compromises including price. Looking at the R8/R6II galleries here, the RF 85 F2IS and RF 24-105 F4L will work very well for me.

Click to expand...

You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse.

Click to expand...

Both Sony and Canon charge the same amount for this zoom

But for Sony you're not dependent on native brand options only.

MAC said:
MAC said:

The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe).

Click to expand...

well, one can shift to a zoom if shooting action,

At the cost of a loss of light. The smaller the loss of light, the higher the extra costs for the zoom.

MAC said:
the RF85 F2 IS handles pedestrian motion

MAC said:

For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

Click to expand...

Sure, but at significant higher costs

Not if you need an L zoom next to it to get your fast AF.

MAC said:
MAC said:

It would be interesting to compare the A7IV & 50mm f/1.2 GM to the R8 + RF 50mm f/1.2 L for low light AF. Faster read out speed, better algorithms and a faster processor, it all helps, however, it can't provide more torque to the AF motors at some point.

Click to expand...

and 2-4 times faster fps - certainly will get some hits

I don't care, but that's a preference thing admittedly.

MAC said:
MAC said:

MAC said:

And if I need 50 fov, the M6II + 32 f1.4 with spot focus has not let me down

Click to expand...

What if Chris had evaluated the AF of the A7IV and R6II using spot focus AF? ;-)

Click to expand...

MAC said:

MAC said:

yes I'd like a RF 50 f1.4 with speedy AF motors for action. But I also want the speed and price and size of an R8

Click to expand...

The price of the R8 is good, but for true low light work an f/2.8 zoom is still beneficial, and at that point the high price of the zoom will compensate Canon for the low price of the R8.

Click to expand...

ahh, but again, look at Sony's similar lens pricing

I'm looking at the pricing of FE options. RF options = Canon options. FE options = more than Sony options only. You can compare as if the FE mount was a closed mount just like the RF mount, but we both know this isn't the reality. And third party options do have downsides sometimes, but they are not necessarily skimping on AF speed.

MAC said:
MAC said:

MAC said:

to each their own - and as Chris said, there is not a bad choice between the Sony and the Canon

Click to expand...

Look, if Canon comes up with both an RF 50mm f/1.4 ÜUSM and RF 85mm f/1.4 ÜUSM I'll simply sell the A7VI. But you and I know Canon won't ever come up with these lenses, so I'm sticking with the A7IV.

Click to expand...

your 50 and 85 are great

but I think for action, your 24-70 is great too

The 50 f/1.2 GM is perfect, beside the fact the 40 Art + R5 is still a tiny little better for low light AF. That's enough of a reason to keep the 40mm for shooting at home, but it's not enough of a reason to carry 40mm in the bag though.

The 85mm DN is better than the RF f/2.0 IS stm for shooting action, but it's still not perfect. The R5 + 105mm Art is better. There's another "problem" with this DN lens: I can't use it when the 50GM occupies the A7IV. This is one reason not to leave the 105 Art at home. Another reason to bring the 105 Art: it's more telephoto, and combined with 45Mp and it's added croppability it's more of a reach option than 85mm @ 32Mp.

The 24-70mm is perfect for both IQ and AF, but the bokeh is so so. That's not a big problem anymore as I can shoot the 50GM and 85mmDN alongside the standard zoom.

I'm still wishing for a faster focusing 85mm though. Neither the RF or the FE mount has a perfect option here. The Sony 85mm GM is slow. The Sigma DN has the stepper motor, whereas the 50mm DN has the faster XD linear motors, and I really wished for those XD linear motors in the 85mm as well. AF speed isn't bad, but it's not great either. The RF 85mm f/1.2 isn't fast which is a shame considering it's price. The Sigma EF f/1.4 isn't crazy fast either. The Canon EF f/1.4 IS USM has fast AF but fringes like hell which isn't even gone shooting narrower than f/2.8, and it's fairly expensive for what it is. So I'm circumventing the lack of the ideal 85mm lens with the 105 Art (fastest AF, negligible distortion, best reach and most beautiful rendering as long as I'm willing to carry a boat anchor), and the 85mm DN (light weight and more flexible, but less speedy AF and distortion, and no 50GM alongside) but it's not ideal. I still have to pick my poison when packing my bag picking the telephoto portrait lens. And I would rather see an RF option to fill that gap than an FE option, that's for sure, but I think it's more likely we will see an FE option filling that gap.

MAC · Mar 3, 2023

thunder storm said:
MAC said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

R2D2 said:

MAC said:

we're still in the dawn of the RF mount - need to give them a chance

Click to expand...

This says it all of course.

R2

Click to expand...

When talking about a high quality Canon 50mm f/1.4 we're still in the dawn of the EF mount if not FD mount.

Click to expand...

touché

but

Chris - he would choose the R6II over the A74 if he were shooting sports and action - he says the subject action AF keeps up with the 40 fps...AMAZING.

Click to expand...

40 fps.... that's a movie. Full automatic culling required...

Click to expand...

faststone is your friend

I'll likely use 20 fps mostly

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

He says he'd chose the A74 for slower general photography for the slightly higher resolution and 3rd party support. For video, Jordon likes the R6II over the A74 for reasons stated here:

Canon EOS R6 Mark II Final Review - YouTube

if using the great zooms with great AF - canon is hard to beat with speed, AF action and pj work

Click to expand...

True. You'll have to pay for those zooms, but a body like the R8 makes the overall package a somewhat better deal. The downside: a good value for money body is worse than good value for money glass, as most shooters have multiple lenses and just one body. There's a reason Canon is discounting bodies but maintaining high prices for lenses.

Click to expand...

And Sony isn't cheaper.

Click to expand...

FE options are.

thunder storm said:

Canon's RF 24-70 is currently $100 less than Sony's

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

though those lens AF motors are impressive and the small size is impressive with your A74, the speed of the sony body and af acquisition in low light for zooms lags behind

Click to expand...

True as well. I'm not selling the R5 + EF 24-70 f/2.8 mkII. The R8 + RF version might be even better for low light AF, but the R5 + EF version is good enough for my needs when it comes to low light AF and AF for fast moving subjects as well. Canon simply wins here, no question.

Click to expand...

yep

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

the big picture - a camera alone cannot take a shot. A lens alone cannot take a shot. It takes the combo. Everything has its compromises including price. Looking at the R8/R6II galleries here, the RF 85 F2IS and RF 24-105 F4L will work very well for me.

Click to expand...

You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse.

Click to expand...

Both Sony and Canon charge the same amount for this zoom

Click to expand...

But for Sony you're not dependent on native brand options only.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe).

Click to expand...

well, one can shift to a zoom if shooting action,

Click to expand...

At the cost of a loss of light. The smaller the loss of light, the higher the extra costs for the zoom.

thunder storm said:

the RF85 F2 IS handles pedestrian motion

thunder storm said:

For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

Click to expand...

Sure, but at significant higher costs

Click to expand...

Not if you need an L zoom next to it to get your fast AF.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

It would be interesting to compare the A7IV & 50mm f/1.2 GM to the R8 + RF 50mm f/1.2 L for low light AF. Faster read out speed, better algorithms and a faster processor, it all helps, however, it can't provide more torque to the AF motors at some point.

Click to expand...

and 2-4 times faster fps - certainly will get some hits

Click to expand...

I don't care, but that's a preference thing admittedly.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

And if I need 50 fov, the M6II + 32 f1.4 with spot focus has not let me down

Click to expand...

What if Chris had evaluated the AF of the A7IV and R6II using spot focus AF? ;-)

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

yes I'd like a RF 50 f1.4 with speedy AF motors for action. But I also want the speed and price and size of an R8

Click to expand...

The price of the R8 is good, but for true low light work an f/2.8 zoom is still beneficial, and at that point the high price of the zoom will compensate Canon for the low price of the R8.

Click to expand...

ahh, but again, look at Sony's similar lens pricing

Click to expand...

I'm looking at the pricing of FE options. RF options = Canon options. FE options = more than Sony options only. You can compare as if the FE mount was a closed mount just like the RF mount, but we both know this isn't the reality. And third party options do have downsides sometimes, but they are not necessarily skimping on AF speed.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

to each their own - and as Chris said, there is not a bad choice between the Sony and the Canon

Click to expand...

Look, if Canon comes up with both an RF 50mm f/1.4 ÜUSM and RF 85mm f/1.4 ÜUSM I'll simply sell the A7VI. But you and I know Canon won't ever come up with these lenses, so I'm sticking with the A7IV.

Click to expand...

your 50 and 85 are great

but I think for action, your 24-70 is great too

Click to expand...

The 50 f/1.2 GM is perfect, beside the fact the 40 Art + R5 is still a tiny little better for low light AF. That's enough of a reason to keep the 40mm for shooting at home, but it's not enough of a reason to carry 40mm in the bag though.

The 85mm DN is better than the RF f/2.0 IS stm for shooting action, but it's still not perfect. The R5 + 105mm Art is better. There's another "problem" with this DN lens: I can't use it when the 50GM occupies the A7IV. This is one reason not to leave the 105 Art at home. Another reason to bring the 105 Art: it's more telephoto, and combined with 45Mp and it's added croppability it's more of a reach option than 85mm @ 32Mp.

The 24-70mm is perfect for both IQ and AF, but the bokeh is so so. That's not a big problem anymore as I can shoot the 50GM and 85mmDN alongside the standard zoom.

I'm still wishing for a faster focusing 85mm though. Neither the RF or the FE mount has a perfect option here. The Sony 85mm GM is slow. The Sigma DN has the stepper motor, whereas the 50mm DN has the faster XD linear motors, and I really wished for those XD linear motors in the 85mm as well. AF speed isn't bad, but it's not great either. The RF 85mm f/1.2 isn't fast which is a shame considering it's price. The Sigma EF f/1.4 isn't crazy fast either. The Canon EF f/1.4 IS USM has fast AF but fringes like hell which isn't even gone shooting narrower than f/2.8, and it's fairly expensive for what it is. So I'm circumventing the lack of the ideal 85mm lens with the 105 Art (fastest AF, negligible distortion, best reach and most beautiful rendering as long as I'm willing to carry a boat anchor), and the 85mm DN (light weight and more flexible, but less speedy AF and distortion, and no 50GM alongside) but it's not ideal. I still have to pick my poison when packing my bag picking the telephoto portrait lens. And I would rather see an RF option to fill that gap than an FE option, that's for sure, but I think it's more likely we will see an FE option filling that gap.

I think you have seen Storm what I was saying in a roundabout way

Having shot 25 + weddings with three bodies, and sports action in division 1, I know with primes you need to have at least two bodies and two primes to keep up with one zoom

imo - once the light weight A7CII comes out evaluate it as your second light weight body to physically carry 2 bodies so you can keep up with the action with your 50 and 85 on two bodies

thunder storm · Mar 3, 2023

LennyLevino said:
LennyLevino said:

You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse. The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe). For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

Click to expand...

A7iv + Sigma 1.4 costs almost twice as much ($3698 vs $1998). For a more fair comparison (in terms of price), it should be the R8 + RF 85mm f1.2 ($3998).

That's a fair point. It will be helpful for low light AF, but not for AF speed. For ergonomics and portability I know my preference between those combos.

thunder storm · Mar 3, 2023

MAC said:
LennyLevino said:

MAC said:

You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse. The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe). For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

Click to expand...

A7iv + Sigma 1.4 costs almost twice as much ($3698 vs $1998). For a more fair comparison (in terms of price), it should be the R8 + RF 85mm f1.2 ($3998).

Click to expand...

well, there is the lack of a full mechanical shutter on the R8 that can cause bokeh clipping at f1.2/f1.4 in strong light

If that's the only problem a filter might be better value for money.

MAC said:
If I were going to invest in a heavy RF 85 F1.2, I would have bought a more capable R6II body

Adds IBIS as well.

MAC said:
and Storm makes a good case for getting the Siggy 85 f1.4 DN and Sony 50 F1.4/F1.2 with great focus motor speed and being smaller with A74 body over the large Canon flagship RF 50/85 L's - if these primes are your thing

but my thing is to run with nano focus speed on my RF 24-105 F4L with -3.2 EV focus acquisition on an R8 that will focus in moonlight and then to use the best in class AI noise redux of dxo PL6 - and supplement with less expensive primes when necessary

LennyLevino · Mar 3, 2023

MAC said:
LennyLevino said:

MAC said:

You got the RF f/4.0 L at it's introduction price. At it's current price the value for money ratio is worse. The RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is great for everything except for AF (and to a lesser extend bokeh maybe). For AF - even low light AF - I would pick the A7IV + Sigma f/1.4 DN any day over an R8 + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

Click to expand...

A7iv + Sigma 1.4 costs almost twice as much ($3698 vs $1998). For a more fair comparison (in terms of price), it should be the R8 + RF 85mm f1.2 ($3998).

Click to expand...

well, there is the lack of a full mechanical shutter on the R8 that can cause bokeh clipping at f1.2/f1.4 in strong light

If I were going to invest in a heavy RF 85 F1.2, I would have bought a more capable R6II body

and Storm makes a good case for getting the Siggy 85 f1.4 DN and Sony 50 F1.4/F1.2 with great focus motor speed and being smaller with A74 body over the large Canon flagship RF 50/85 L's - if these primes are your thing

but my thing is to run with nano focus speed on my RF 24-105 F4L with -3.2 EV focus acquisition on an R8 that will focus in moonlight and then to use the best in class AI noise redux of dxo PL6 - and supplement with less expensive primes when necessary

You're absolutely right. The R8 is not a competitor to the A7IV. That would be the R6ii.

Of course if you buy the R6II then you won't have access to any f1.4 primes, like you would if you had a Sony.

Overall if you're looking for pro-level lenses at lower prices than top-of-the-line native Sony, Nikon or Canon glass, then Canon isn't for you.

RLight · Mar 3, 2023

CamerEyes said:
RLight said:

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.

.

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.

Click to expand...

Your rationale is, well, rational. I say go for it.

I too am looking forward to having the R50 in my hands. I might give up on my smallest camera at the moment - the Sony A7C - if the R50 proves as capable as the R10 in the image quality department. It will be a hard discussion, since the A7C is FF with gorgeous dynamic range and high ISO noise.

That’s the hidden contender in this race. But Sony needs to update it, and all FF options get “hit” when accounting for telephoto lens footprint. No, this is the R50’s race to loose here.

My plan B is the R8. But, I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

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

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts