R8 / RF28 initial thoughts

m100 said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

While studying the R8 and RF 28mm, couple tidbits…

Both the R8 and R50 (and R100) are 86mm in height. I’ve discussed this before, but I gather due to the mount diameter, Canon simply cannot make a body any shorter. Folks have speculated that the EVF could be cut off ala M6, but, I gather there has to be some room for frame, wires, etc, which Canon choose to move the EVF back, instead of down (as they couldn’t go any further down presumably).

I’ve come to realize both through analysis and observation, there’s in fact 3 qualities to compactness…

1. Bulk/stow-ability

2. weight / handling

3. perceived platform

.

Regarding #1, this comes down to how big something is. Pure and simple. Less cubic feet, it fits, or doesn’t. But, things like having a compact pancake prime like the 28mm, and a compact as possible body, can mean something can fit in say a cargo pocket, glovebox, or say fit with a bunch of lenses in a bag. The R8 and RF 28mm really tick boxes here by getting into a form factor in terms of Bulk/stowability as say an M50 or M6 II +EVF + 22mm. Granted I’ve admitted it’s a touch bigger, but in my book, it’s a touch. The glovebox the M6 II + 22 (no EVF) BARELY fit in the glovebox, the R8 + RF 28mm BARELY doesn’t. Both pocket in cargo shorts or jackets. Draw in my book.

.

Regarding #2, again, much like weight and handling, the weight is straightforward, if something weighs less, it weighs less and is easier to carry, causes less fatigue and may be less of a problem in airlines luggage. But regarding handling? I’ve found via the R3, larger grips are good; they mean you have more mechanical advantage. You can carry a heavier body, or heavier attached lens (or both) more easily with less fatigue. Likewise, the width of the strap, influences how the weight is distributed. I noted the R8 + RF 28mm is in fact “lighter” both to hold and sling not because it weighs less (it weighs more), but rather because of the larger grip and larger width of the stock strap (vs the M6 II strap). I find the stock strap “sticks” to me more which I don’t like, but it hasn’t been a problem-problem. But it makes the camera “feel” lighter. Less fatigue, less noticeable. I should add the size of your body / grip should match the footprint of the lens. Don’t let me stop you from shooting an RF 28mm f/2.8 STM on an R3, or the 28-70 f/2L USM on the R8, but each has it’s place. The R8 and RF 28mm “pair” well as do the R3 and 28-70 “pair” well.

.

3. Perceived platform. This has been a recent revelation; what makes a camera noticed? Camera? How big? Glass? How much? People used to ask what camera I shot, when the RF 28-70 f/2L was mounted, on the original Canon R. This was after the R5 and R3 had been released. Folks don’t care about the camera, they care about that glass pointed at them. Likewise, it took me figuring out it’s not just the width of the front element, it’s width of the the lens cap. This now makes more sense why RF-S starts as a 55mm but think funnels down to a crop in width. It reduces both the bulk of the lens but more importantly the perceived footprint by reducing not just the front element, but the front casing, too. This has been part of the missing piece to the puzzle.

.

Regarding the RF 28mm itself… About that PMo glass….

3 PMo, vs 1 ASC on the EF-M 22mm.

Does anyone recall the switch on the EF 100-400L single FL element to multiple non-FL corrective elements which Canon claimed gave the same degree of correction / results without the use of the expensive FL element? History doesn’t repeat, but often rhymes. I personally thought the results between the two were comparable, but the FL element did give a special rendering in my book. I have to say the same here. It produces a similar effect. I’d say outside in harsh lighting, the EF-M 22mm gives a more natural look. But, indoors where you’re dealing with less harsh light, and less of it, I’d say the RF 28mm f/2.8 STM gives a “better” look (on the R8). For its intended use case (less light),

Click to expand...

No, the intended use case is about portability, for light gathering indoors you and I have better options.

m100 said:

I’d say the RF 28mm does it’s intended job well, and does non-intended jobs, pretty respectably thus far.

Click to expand...

A little polarizer filter could be a wise investment.

Click to expand...

I'm not big on filters, but for this lens and scape shooting, sounds interesting

Are you going to buy the 28?

Click to expand...

If Canon comes up with a lens like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I'll sell my Sony stuff.

I have my 50mm f/1.2 GM. You have your ef-m 32mm f/1.4.

My 40mm ART is too heavy and too wide as a 50mm. I'm not gonna do 28mm pancake + 40mm Art + 105mm Art.

I'm not going to invest in RF lenses as long as there's no decent 50mm in the system. Especially not in compact lenses, as Sony FE is my platform for compactness. FE has the 28-60mm, the 760g f/1.2 50mm and 560g 85mm f/1.4 DN. The 28-60mm is compact enough for me. If it's about light gathering I use the 28mm f/1.4 ART via mc11. If it's about wide next to the 50GM the Tamron covers 17-35mm, and that one works via mc11 as well, but - like the 28mm Art I can also use that one on the R5 as a second body. My standard zoom on the R5 does 28mm at f/2.8, so no light gathering advantage there.

I'm enjoying 2 bodies, 50GM+A7IV+ 105Art&R5 is pure gold. I also like 85mm DN + 24-70mkii.

I do wish the some aspects of the A7IV would be on par with the R5, but that RF 50 f/1.2 was just focusing so awfull, and the GM is so much more sophisticated. The A7IV is also a bit smarter in nailing the eye at f/1.2 with faces looking somewat away or down than the R5 with the L.

You can't do "go next face" with the A74. I hate that. The light metering is not as good, and it's also a bit harder to judge what the amount of EC should be from the A74 it's viewfinder. Colors are generally nice, but in tricky circumstances the R5 has an advantage. AF in very low light (true torture territory) is better with the R5 + 40mm Art than A74+50mm GM, but that's wide open at 1/20th with your ISO going out of the athmosphere. GMis still better in light than the L.....

R6II is nice of course, but no decent 50mm, and 24Mp only, and fairly expensive.

R8 has I nice price, but no decent 50mm, 24 Mp only, 2 dials less than the A7IV, no IBIS (a lot of my lenses lack ILIS) and no full mechanical shutter ( I need that for my f/1.4 lenses, especially the 105mm Art).

So if Canon comes up with a 32-45Mp R6mkiii and a lens as good as the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I might get a 28mm pancake as well and who knows an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 as well, but for now it's uncertain if I will stick with Canon. Sony isn't done with improving light metering and colors, and if one body fixes it I'll go that way.

For now I'm trying to make the most of my current gear, not spilling money on gimmick lenses. .

That's me though. I do like it Canon has created this option. Next to a slow kit zoom it's a killer lens. Most customers nowadays don't care for 50mm or longer perspectives anyway, as they are used to phones. And most cusomers don't think about shutterspeeds, making IBIS useless anyway. So all they need is a fast compact lens, a minimum shutter speed of at least 1/250th (like I've set on the 6D of my wife), and a sensor performing great at higher ISO values. Yes, see a market for this stuff.

m100 said:

m100 said:

m100 said:

.

About the STM motor...

The RF28mm f/2.8 STM motor is “fast”, especially compared to the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. That was one gripe I had about EF-M glass, the STM motors on lenses that used non-screw type, were slow. This one, I don’t know if it’s screw or not, but it’s fast.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's important information. The fical length is not challenging and the moving glass ("glass?") weights next nothing, so some hope was justified.

m100 said:

It matters as anyone who’s shot those lenses will tell you.

Click to expand...

Yup

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not to agree with you, but I was thinking Canon is “missing” a 50mm f/1.4 in native RF… Nano USM would be nice.

Click to expand...

Achilles heel of the system, no matter how many fancy pancakes Canon brings out.

m100 said:

Canons not gonna do yet another sensor anytime soon. The R3 and R8 sensors are fierce though; they give a unique rendering. It’s not just how many MP, it’s the quality of the end product it generates.

Click to expand...

I prefer to have both that quality, AND more than 24Mp, so I'm skipping this round.

m100 said:

Honestly the R50 sensor is pretty good too. Again, lenses are the holdout.

I personally would probably not buy a 50L, but a 50 1.4? Yes. Question is, will Canon do it? They were stubborn about not refreshing the EF flavor which makes me think no.

Click to expand...

Canon won't, that's the problem.

Click to expand...

They won’t. But you also have to contend with problems of the other ecosystems. Grass isn’t greener per se. I feel very similar to this to other things in life… Thought about it this morning… The lack of practical 50 doesn’t kill it for me, but historically it has, and I understand very well.

In other news I funneled my question to engineering, we’ll see what becomes of it. They may deflect. Sometimes they answer, they’re quite a proud bunch.

Click to expand...

Who knows what Canon will make now that they have that plastic fantastic lens making machine ?

I hope it is running smooth and that the lenses are a big hit. I like small sharp lenses that don't cost a lot !

Click to expand...

RLight said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

While studying the R8 and RF 28mm, couple tidbits…

Both the R8 and R50 (and R100) are 86mm in height. I’ve discussed this before, but I gather due to the mount diameter, Canon simply cannot make a body any shorter. Folks have speculated that the EVF could be cut off ala M6, but, I gather there has to be some room for frame, wires, etc, which Canon choose to move the EVF back, instead of down (as they couldn’t go any further down presumably).

I’ve come to realize both through analysis and observation, there’s in fact 3 qualities to compactness…

1. Bulk/stow-ability

2. weight / handling

3. perceived platform

.

Regarding #1, this comes down to how big something is. Pure and simple. Less cubic feet, it fits, or doesn’t. But, things like having a compact pancake prime like the 28mm, and a compact as possible body, can mean something can fit in say a cargo pocket, glovebox, or say fit with a bunch of lenses in a bag. The R8 and RF 28mm really tick boxes here by getting into a form factor in terms of Bulk/stowability as say an M50 or M6 II +EVF + 22mm. Granted I’ve admitted it’s a touch bigger, but in my book, it’s a touch. The glovebox the M6 II + 22 (no EVF) BARELY fit in the glovebox, the R8 + RF 28mm BARELY doesn’t. Both pocket in cargo shorts or jackets. Draw in my book.

.

Regarding #2, again, much like weight and handling, the weight is straightforward, if something weighs less, it weighs less and is easier to carry, causes less fatigue and may be less of a problem in airlines luggage. But regarding handling? I’ve found via the R3, larger grips are good; they mean you have more mechanical advantage. You can carry a heavier body, or heavier attached lens (or both) more easily with less fatigue. Likewise, the width of the strap, influences how the weight is distributed. I noted the R8 + RF 28mm is in fact “lighter” both to hold and sling not because it weighs less (it weighs more), but rather because of the larger grip and larger width of the stock strap (vs the M6 II strap). I find the stock strap “sticks” to me more which I don’t like, but it hasn’t been a problem-problem. But it makes the camera “feel” lighter. Less fatigue, less noticeable. I should add the size of your body / grip should match the footprint of the lens. Don’t let me stop you from shooting an RF 28mm f/2.8 STM on an R3, or the 28-70 f/2L USM on the R8, but each has it’s place. The R8 and RF 28mm “pair” well as do the R3 and 28-70 “pair” well.

.

3. Perceived platform. This has been a recent revelation; what makes a camera noticed? Camera? How big? Glass? How much? People used to ask what camera I shot, when the RF 28-70 f/2L was mounted, on the original Canon R. This was after the R5 and R3 had been released. Folks don’t care about the camera, they care about that glass pointed at them. Likewise, it took me figuring out it’s not just the width of the front element, it’s width of the the lens cap. This now makes more sense why RF-S starts as a 55mm but think funnels down to a crop in width. It reduces both the bulk of the lens but more importantly the perceived footprint by reducing not just the front element, but the front casing, too. This has been part of the missing piece to the puzzle.

.

Regarding the RF 28mm itself… About that PMo glass….

3 PMo, vs 1 ASC on the EF-M 22mm.

Does anyone recall the switch on the EF 100-400L single FL element to multiple non-FL corrective elements which Canon claimed gave the same degree of correction / results without the use of the expensive FL element? History doesn’t repeat, but often rhymes. I personally thought the results between the two were comparable, but the FL element did give a special rendering in my book. I have to say the same here. It produces a similar effect. I’d say outside in harsh lighting, the EF-M 22mm gives a more natural look. But, indoors where you’re dealing with less harsh light, and less of it, I’d say the RF 28mm f/2.8 STM gives a “better” look (on the R8). For its intended use case (less light),

Click to expand...

No, the intended use case is about portability, for light gathering indoors you and I have better options.

RLight said:

I’d say the RF 28mm does it’s intended job well, and does non-intended jobs, pretty respectably thus far.

Click to expand...

A little polarizer filter could be a wise investment.

Click to expand...

I'm not big on filters, but for this lens and scape shooting, sounds interesting

Are you going to buy the 28?

Click to expand...

If Canon comes up with a lens like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I'll sell my Sony stuff.

I have my 50mm f/1.2 GM. You have your ef-m 32mm f/1.4.

My 40mm ART is too heavy and too wide as a 50mm. I'm not gonna do 28mm pancake + 40mm Art + 105mm Art.

I'm not going to invest in RF lenses as long as there's no decent 50mm in the system. Especially not in compact lenses, as Sony FE is my platform for compactness. FE has the 28-60mm, the 760g f/1.2 50mm and 560g 85mm f/1.4 DN. The 28-60mm is compact enough for me. If it's about light gathering I use the 28mm f/1.4 ART via mc11. If it's about wide next to the 50GM the Tamron covers 17-35mm, and that one works via mc11 as well, but - like the 28mm Art I can also use that one on the R5 as a second body. My standard zoom on the R5 does 28mm at f/2.8, so no light gathering advantage there.

I'm enjoying 2 bodies, 50GM+A7IV+ 105Art&R5 is pure gold. I also like 85mm DN + 24-70mkii.

I do wish the some aspects of the A7IV would be on par with the R5, but that RF 50 f/1.2 was just focusing so awfull, and the GM is so much more sophisticated. The A7IV is also a bit smarter in nailing the eye at f/1.2 with faces looking somewat away or down than the R5 with the L.

You can't do "go next face" with the A74. I hate that. The light metering is not as good, and it's also a bit harder to judge what the amount of EC should be from the A74 it's viewfinder. Colors are generally nice, but in tricky circumstances the R5 has an advantage. AF in very low light (true torture territory) is better with the R5 + 40mm Art than A74+50mm GM, but that's wide open at 1/20th with your ISO going out of the athmosphere. GMis still better in light than the L.....

R6II is nice of course, but no decent 50mm, and 24Mp only, and fairly expensive.

R8 has I nice price, but no decent 50mm, 24 Mp only, 2 dials less than the A7IV, no IBIS (a lot of my lenses lack ILIS) and no full mechanical shutter ( I need that for my f/1.4 lenses, especially the 105mm Art).

So if Canon comes up with a 32-45Mp R6mkiii and a lens as good as the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I might get a 28mm pancake as well and who knows an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 as well, but for now it's uncertain if I will stick with Canon. Sony isn't done with improving light metering and colors, and if one body fixes it I'll go that way.

For now I'm trying to make the most of my current gear, not spilling money on gimmick lenses. .

That's me though. I do like it Canon has created this option. Next to a slow kit zoom it's a killer lens. Most customers nowadays don't care for 50mm or longer perspectives anyway, as they are used to phones. And most cusomers don't think about shutterspeeds, making IBIS useless anyway. So all they need is a fast compact lens, a minimum shutter speed of at least 1/250th (like I've set on the 6D of my wife), and a sensor performing great at higher ISO values. Yes, see a market for this stuff.

RLight said:

RLight said:

RLight said:

.

About the STM motor...

The RF28mm f/2.8 STM motor is “fast”, especially compared to the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. That was one gripe I had about EF-M glass, the STM motors on lenses that used non-screw type, were slow. This one, I don’t know if it’s screw or not, but it’s fast.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's important information. The fical length is not challenging and the moving glass ("glass?") weights next nothing, so some hope was justified.

RLight said:

It matters as anyone who’s shot those lenses will tell you.

Click to expand...

Yup

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not to agree with you, but I was thinking Canon is “missing” a 50mm f/1.4 in native RF… Nano USM would be nice.

Click to expand...

Achilles heel of the system, no matter how many fancy pancakes Canon brings out.

RLight said:

Canons not gonna do yet another sensor anytime soon. The R3 and R8 sensors are fierce though; they give a unique rendering. It’s not just how many MP, it’s the quality of the end product it generates.

Click to expand...

I prefer to have both that quality, AND more than 24Mp, so I'm skipping this round.

RLight said:

Honestly the R50 sensor is pretty good too. Again, lenses are the holdout.

I personally would probably not buy a 50L, but a 50 1.4? Yes. Question is, will Canon do it? They were stubborn about not refreshing the EF flavor which makes me think no.

Click to expand...

Canon won't, that's the problem.

Click to expand...

They won’t. But you also have to contend with problems of the other ecosystems. Grass isn’t greener per se. I feel very similar to this to other things in life… Thought about it this morning… The lack of practical 50 doesn’t kill it for me, but historically it has, and I understand very well.

In other news I funneled my question to engineering, we’ll see what becomes of it. They may deflect. Sometimes they answer, they’re quite a proud bunch.

Click to expand...

Who knows what Canon will make now that they have that plastic fantastic lens making machine ?

I hope it is running smooth and that the lenses are a big hit. I like small sharp lenses that don't cost a lot !

Click to expand...

Canon support knows but won’t comment further on changes in firmware. In the past support would try to give me tier 1 advice, they’re not contending I’m doing something wrong but correctly differing Canon could’ve made software changes and could pass them down.

So that’s that. Yes Canon did change stuff (post R6II) and won’t comment further at this time. Same way I handle an internal data where I know the customer is right but can’t disclose.

Edit: my request for subject tracking changes in the R6 II being backported to the R3 is going to ENG. No promises on response. Good. Maybe we’ll get something to the effect of the R getting the RP AF enhancements at such a date.

Click to expand...

juanmaasecas said:

RLight said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

While studying the R8 and RF 28mm, couple tidbits…

Both the R8 and R50 (and R100) are 86mm in height. I’ve discussed this before, but I gather due to the mount diameter, Canon simply cannot make a body any shorter. Folks have speculated that the EVF could be cut off ala M6, but, I gather there has to be some room for frame, wires, etc, which Canon choose to move the EVF back, instead of down (as they couldn’t go any further down presumably).

I’ve come to realize both through analysis and observation, there’s in fact 3 qualities to compactness…

1. Bulk/stow-ability

2. weight / handling

3. perceived platform

.

Regarding #1, this comes down to how big something is. Pure and simple. Less cubic feet, it fits, or doesn’t. But, things like having a compact pancake prime like the 28mm, and a compact as possible body, can mean something can fit in say a cargo pocket, glovebox, or say fit with a bunch of lenses in a bag. The R8 and RF 28mm really tick boxes here by getting into a form factor in terms of Bulk/stowability as say an M50 or M6 II +EVF + 22mm. Granted I’ve admitted it’s a touch bigger, but in my book, it’s a touch. The glovebox the M6 II + 22 (no EVF) BARELY fit in the glovebox, the R8 + RF 28mm BARELY doesn’t. Both pocket in cargo shorts or jackets. Draw in my book.

.

Regarding #2, again, much like weight and handling, the weight is straightforward, if something weighs less, it weighs less and is easier to carry, causes less fatigue and may be less of a problem in airlines luggage. But regarding handling? I’ve found via the R3, larger grips are good; they mean you have more mechanical advantage. You can carry a heavier body, or heavier attached lens (or both) more easily with less fatigue. Likewise, the width of the strap, influences how the weight is distributed. I noted the R8 + RF 28mm is in fact “lighter” both to hold and sling not because it weighs less (it weighs more), but rather because of the larger grip and larger width of the stock strap (vs the M6 II strap). I find the stock strap “sticks” to me more which I don’t like, but it hasn’t been a problem-problem. But it makes the camera “feel” lighter. Less fatigue, less noticeable. I should add the size of your body / grip should match the footprint of the lens. Don’t let me stop you from shooting an RF 28mm f/2.8 STM on an R3, or the 28-70 f/2L USM on the R8, but each has it’s place. The R8 and RF 28mm “pair” well as do the R3 and 28-70 “pair” well.

.

3. Perceived platform. This has been a recent revelation; what makes a camera noticed? Camera? How big? Glass? How much? People used to ask what camera I shot, when the RF 28-70 f/2L was mounted, on the original Canon R. This was after the R5 and R3 had been released. Folks don’t care about the camera, they care about that glass pointed at them. Likewise, it took me figuring out it’s not just the width of the front element, it’s width of the the lens cap. This now makes more sense why RF-S starts as a 55mm but think funnels down to a crop in width. It reduces both the bulk of the lens but more importantly the perceived footprint by reducing not just the front element, but the front casing, too. This has been part of the missing piece to the puzzle.

.

Regarding the RF 28mm itself… About that PMo glass….

3 PMo, vs 1 ASC on the EF-M 22mm.

Does anyone recall the switch on the EF 100-400L single FL element to multiple non-FL corrective elements which Canon claimed gave the same degree of correction / results without the use of the expensive FL element? History doesn’t repeat, but often rhymes. I personally thought the results between the two were comparable, but the FL element did give a special rendering in my book. I have to say the same here. It produces a similar effect. I’d say outside in harsh lighting, the EF-M 22mm gives a more natural look. But, indoors where you’re dealing with less harsh light, and less of it, I’d say the RF 28mm f/2.8 STM gives a “better” look (on the R8). For its intended use case (less light),

Click to expand...

No, the intended use case is about portability, for light gathering indoors you and I have better options.

juanmaasecas said:

I’d say the RF 28mm does it’s intended job well, and does non-intended jobs, pretty respectably thus far.

Click to expand...

A little polarizer filter could be a wise investment.

Click to expand...

I'm not big on filters, but for this lens and scape shooting, sounds interesting

Are you going to buy the 28?

Click to expand...

If Canon comes up with a lens like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I'll sell my Sony stuff.

I have my 50mm f/1.2 GM. You have your ef-m 32mm f/1.4.

My 40mm ART is too heavy and too wide as a 50mm. I'm not gonna do 28mm pancake + 40mm Art + 105mm Art.

I'm not going to invest in RF lenses as long as there's no decent 50mm in the system. Especially not in compact lenses, as Sony FE is my platform for compactness. FE has the 28-60mm, the 760g f/1.2 50mm and 560g 85mm f/1.4 DN. The 28-60mm is compact enough for me. If it's about light gathering I use the 28mm f/1.4 ART via mc11. If it's about wide next to the 50GM the Tamron covers 17-35mm, and that one works via mc11 as well, but - like the 28mm Art I can also use that one on the R5 as a second body. My standard zoom on the R5 does 28mm at f/2.8, so no light gathering advantage there.

I'm enjoying 2 bodies, 50GM+A7IV+ 105Art&R5 is pure gold. I also like 85mm DN + 24-70mkii.

I do wish the some aspects of the A7IV would be on par with the R5, but that RF 50 f/1.2 was just focusing so awfull, and the GM is so much more sophisticated. The A7IV is also a bit smarter in nailing the eye at f/1.2 with faces looking somewat away or down than the R5 with the L.

You can't do "go next face" with the A74. I hate that. The light metering is not as good, and it's also a bit harder to judge what the amount of EC should be from the A74 it's viewfinder. Colors are generally nice, but in tricky circumstances the R5 has an advantage. AF in very low light (true torture territory) is better with the R5 + 40mm Art than A74+50mm GM, but that's wide open at 1/20th with your ISO going out of the athmosphere. GMis still better in light than the L.....

R6II is nice of course, but no decent 50mm, and 24Mp only, and fairly expensive.

R8 has I nice price, but no decent 50mm, 24 Mp only, 2 dials less than the A7IV, no IBIS (a lot of my lenses lack ILIS) and no full mechanical shutter ( I need that for my f/1.4 lenses, especially the 105mm Art).

So if Canon comes up with a 32-45Mp R6mkiii and a lens as good as the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I might get a 28mm pancake as well and who knows an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 as well, but for now it's uncertain if I will stick with Canon. Sony isn't done with improving light metering and colors, and if one body fixes it I'll go that way.

For now I'm trying to make the most of my current gear, not spilling money on gimmick lenses. .

That's me though. I do like it Canon has created this option. Next to a slow kit zoom it's a killer lens. Most customers nowadays don't care for 50mm or longer perspectives anyway, as they are used to phones. And most cusomers don't think about shutterspeeds, making IBIS useless anyway. So all they need is a fast compact lens, a minimum shutter speed of at least 1/250th (like I've set on the 6D of my wife), and a sensor performing great at higher ISO values. Yes, see a market for this stuff.

juanmaasecas said:

juanmaasecas said:

juanmaasecas said:

.

About the STM motor...

The RF28mm f/2.8 STM motor is “fast”, especially compared to the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. That was one gripe I had about EF-M glass, the STM motors on lenses that used non-screw type, were slow. This one, I don’t know if it’s screw or not, but it’s fast.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's important information. The fical length is not challenging and the moving glass ("glass?") weights next nothing, so some hope was justified.

juanmaasecas said:

It matters as anyone who’s shot those lenses will tell you.

Click to expand...

Yup

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not to agree with you, but I was thinking Canon is “missing” a 50mm f/1.4 in native RF… Nano USM would be nice.

Click to expand...

Achilles heel of the system, no matter how many fancy pancakes Canon brings out.

juanmaasecas said:

Canons not gonna do yet another sensor anytime soon. The R3 and R8 sensors are fierce though; they give a unique rendering. It’s not just how many MP, it’s the quality of the end product it generates.

Click to expand...

I prefer to have both that quality, AND more than 24Mp, so I'm skipping this round.

juanmaasecas said:

Honestly the R50 sensor is pretty good too. Again, lenses are the holdout.

I personally would probably not buy a 50L, but a 50 1.4? Yes. Question is, will Canon do it? They were stubborn about not refreshing the EF flavor which makes me think no.

Click to expand...

Canon won't, that's the problem.

Click to expand...

They won’t. But you also have to contend with problems of the other ecosystems. Grass isn’t greener per se. I feel very similar to this to other things in life… Thought about it this morning… The lack of practical 50 doesn’t kill it for me, but historically it has, and I understand very well.

In other news I funneled my question to engineering, we’ll see what becomes of it. They may deflect. Sometimes they answer, they’re quite a proud bunch.

Click to expand...

Who knows what Canon will make now that they have that plastic fantastic lens making machine ?

I hope it is running smooth and that the lenses are a big hit. I like small sharp lenses that don't cost a lot !

Click to expand...

Canon support knows but won’t comment further on changes in firmware. In the past support would try to give me tier 1 advice, they’re not contending I’m doing something wrong but correctly differing Canon could’ve made software changes and could pass them down.

So that’s that. Yes Canon did change stuff (post R6II) and won’t comment further at this time. Same way I handle an internal data where I know the customer is right but can’t disclose.

Edit: my request for subject tracking changes in the R6 II being backported to the R3 is going to ENG. No promises on response. Good. Maybe we’ll get something to the effect of the R getting the RP AF enhancements at such a date.

Click to expand...

I’ve been playing with sample raws from here from r62, r5 and r8 and in Lightroom they look basically identical, just minor differences in white balance that are similar between r5 and r8 than between r8 and r6 Ii. Even more similar in capture one. So maybe the jpg engine has been improved but in raw I don’t think there are major differences…

Click to expand...

RLight said:

juanmaasecas said:

RLight said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

While studying the R8 and RF 28mm, couple tidbits…

Both the R8 and R50 (and R100) are 86mm in height. I’ve discussed this before, but I gather due to the mount diameter, Canon simply cannot make a body any shorter. Folks have speculated that the EVF could be cut off ala M6, but, I gather there has to be some room for frame, wires, etc, which Canon choose to move the EVF back, instead of down (as they couldn’t go any further down presumably).

I’ve come to realize both through analysis and observation, there’s in fact 3 qualities to compactness…

1. Bulk/stow-ability

2. weight / handling

3. perceived platform

.

Regarding #1, this comes down to how big something is. Pure and simple. Less cubic feet, it fits, or doesn’t. But, things like having a compact pancake prime like the 28mm, and a compact as possible body, can mean something can fit in say a cargo pocket, glovebox, or say fit with a bunch of lenses in a bag. The R8 and RF 28mm really tick boxes here by getting into a form factor in terms of Bulk/stowability as say an M50 or M6 II +EVF + 22mm. Granted I’ve admitted it’s a touch bigger, but in my book, it’s a touch. The glovebox the M6 II + 22 (no EVF) BARELY fit in the glovebox, the R8 + RF 28mm BARELY doesn’t. Both pocket in cargo shorts or jackets. Draw in my book.

.

Regarding #2, again, much like weight and handling, the weight is straightforward, if something weighs less, it weighs less and is easier to carry, causes less fatigue and may be less of a problem in airlines luggage. But regarding handling? I’ve found via the R3, larger grips are good; they mean you have more mechanical advantage. You can carry a heavier body, or heavier attached lens (or both) more easily with less fatigue. Likewise, the width of the strap, influences how the weight is distributed. I noted the R8 + RF 28mm is in fact “lighter” both to hold and sling not because it weighs less (it weighs more), but rather because of the larger grip and larger width of the stock strap (vs the M6 II strap). I find the stock strap “sticks” to me more which I don’t like, but it hasn’t been a problem-problem. But it makes the camera “feel” lighter. Less fatigue, less noticeable. I should add the size of your body / grip should match the footprint of the lens. Don’t let me stop you from shooting an RF 28mm f/2.8 STM on an R3, or the 28-70 f/2L USM on the R8, but each has it’s place. The R8 and RF 28mm “pair” well as do the R3 and 28-70 “pair” well.

.

3. Perceived platform. This has been a recent revelation; what makes a camera noticed? Camera? How big? Glass? How much? People used to ask what camera I shot, when the RF 28-70 f/2L was mounted, on the original Canon R. This was after the R5 and R3 had been released. Folks don’t care about the camera, they care about that glass pointed at them. Likewise, it took me figuring out it’s not just the width of the front element, it’s width of the the lens cap. This now makes more sense why RF-S starts as a 55mm but think funnels down to a crop in width. It reduces both the bulk of the lens but more importantly the perceived footprint by reducing not just the front element, but the front casing, too. This has been part of the missing piece to the puzzle.

.

Regarding the RF 28mm itself… About that PMo glass….

3 PMo, vs 1 ASC on the EF-M 22mm.

Does anyone recall the switch on the EF 100-400L single FL element to multiple non-FL corrective elements which Canon claimed gave the same degree of correction / results without the use of the expensive FL element? History doesn’t repeat, but often rhymes. I personally thought the results between the two were comparable, but the FL element did give a special rendering in my book. I have to say the same here. It produces a similar effect. I’d say outside in harsh lighting, the EF-M 22mm gives a more natural look. But, indoors where you’re dealing with less harsh light, and less of it, I’d say the RF 28mm f/2.8 STM gives a “better” look (on the R8). For its intended use case (less light),

Click to expand...

No, the intended use case is about portability, for light gathering indoors you and I have better options.

RLight said:

I’d say the RF 28mm does it’s intended job well, and does non-intended jobs, pretty respectably thus far.

Click to expand...

A little polarizer filter could be a wise investment.

Click to expand...

I'm not big on filters, but for this lens and scape shooting, sounds interesting

Are you going to buy the 28?

Click to expand...

If Canon comes up with a lens like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I'll sell my Sony stuff.

I have my 50mm f/1.2 GM. You have your ef-m 32mm f/1.4.

My 40mm ART is too heavy and too wide as a 50mm. I'm not gonna do 28mm pancake + 40mm Art + 105mm Art.

I'm not going to invest in RF lenses as long as there's no decent 50mm in the system. Especially not in compact lenses, as Sony FE is my platform for compactness. FE has the 28-60mm, the 760g f/1.2 50mm and 560g 85mm f/1.4 DN. The 28-60mm is compact enough for me. If it's about light gathering I use the 28mm f/1.4 ART via mc11. If it's about wide next to the 50GM the Tamron covers 17-35mm, and that one works via mc11 as well, but - like the 28mm Art I can also use that one on the R5 as a second body. My standard zoom on the R5 does 28mm at f/2.8, so no light gathering advantage there.

I'm enjoying 2 bodies, 50GM+A7IV+ 105Art&R5 is pure gold. I also like 85mm DN + 24-70mkii.

I do wish the some aspects of the A7IV would be on par with the R5, but that RF 50 f/1.2 was just focusing so awfull, and the GM is so much more sophisticated. The A7IV is also a bit smarter in nailing the eye at f/1.2 with faces looking somewat away or down than the R5 with the L.

You can't do "go next face" with the A74. I hate that. The light metering is not as good, and it's also a bit harder to judge what the amount of EC should be from the A74 it's viewfinder. Colors are generally nice, but in tricky circumstances the R5 has an advantage. AF in very low light (true torture territory) is better with the R5 + 40mm Art than A74+50mm GM, but that's wide open at 1/20th with your ISO going out of the athmosphere. GMis still better in light than the L.....

R6II is nice of course, but no decent 50mm, and 24Mp only, and fairly expensive.

R8 has I nice price, but no decent 50mm, 24 Mp only, 2 dials less than the A7IV, no IBIS (a lot of my lenses lack ILIS) and no full mechanical shutter ( I need that for my f/1.4 lenses, especially the 105mm Art).

So if Canon comes up with a 32-45Mp R6mkiii and a lens as good as the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I might get a 28mm pancake as well and who knows an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 as well, but for now it's uncertain if I will stick with Canon. Sony isn't done with improving light metering and colors, and if one body fixes it I'll go that way.

For now I'm trying to make the most of my current gear, not spilling money on gimmick lenses. .

That's me though. I do like it Canon has created this option. Next to a slow kit zoom it's a killer lens. Most customers nowadays don't care for 50mm or longer perspectives anyway, as they are used to phones. And most cusomers don't think about shutterspeeds, making IBIS useless anyway. So all they need is a fast compact lens, a minimum shutter speed of at least 1/250th (like I've set on the 6D of my wife), and a sensor performing great at higher ISO values. Yes, see a market for this stuff.

RLight said:

RLight said:

RLight said:

.

About the STM motor...

The RF28mm f/2.8 STM motor is “fast”, especially compared to the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. That was one gripe I had about EF-M glass, the STM motors on lenses that used non-screw type, were slow. This one, I don’t know if it’s screw or not, but it’s fast.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's important information. The fical length is not challenging and the moving glass ("glass?") weights next nothing, so some hope was justified.

RLight said:

It matters as anyone who’s shot those lenses will tell you.

Click to expand...

Yup

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not to agree with you, but I was thinking Canon is “missing” a 50mm f/1.4 in native RF… Nano USM would be nice.

Click to expand...

Achilles heel of the system, no matter how many fancy pancakes Canon brings out.

RLight said:

Canons not gonna do yet another sensor anytime soon. The R3 and R8 sensors are fierce though; they give a unique rendering. It’s not just how many MP, it’s the quality of the end product it generates.

Click to expand...

I prefer to have both that quality, AND more than 24Mp, so I'm skipping this round.

RLight said:

Honestly the R50 sensor is pretty good too. Again, lenses are the holdout.

I personally would probably not buy a 50L, but a 50 1.4? Yes. Question is, will Canon do it? They were stubborn about not refreshing the EF flavor which makes me think no.

Click to expand...

Canon won't, that's the problem.

Click to expand...

They won’t. But you also have to contend with problems of the other ecosystems. Grass isn’t greener per se. I feel very similar to this to other things in life… Thought about it this morning… The lack of practical 50 doesn’t kill it for me, but historically it has, and I understand very well.

In other news I funneled my question to engineering, we’ll see what becomes of it. They may deflect. Sometimes they answer, they’re quite a proud bunch.

Click to expand...

Who knows what Canon will make now that they have that plastic fantastic lens making machine ?

I hope it is running smooth and that the lenses are a big hit. I like small sharp lenses that don't cost a lot !

Click to expand...

Canon support knows but won’t comment further on changes in firmware. In the past support would try to give me tier 1 advice, they’re not contending I’m doing something wrong but correctly differing Canon could’ve made software changes and could pass them down.

So that’s that. Yes Canon did change stuff (post R6II) and won’t comment further at this time. Same way I handle an internal data where I know the customer is right but can’t disclose.

Edit: my request for subject tracking changes in the R6 II being backported to the R3 is going to ENG. No promises on response. Good. Maybe we’ll get something to the effect of the R getting the RP AF enhancements at such a date.

Click to expand...

I’ve been playing with sample raws from here from r62, r5 and r8 and in Lightroom they look basically identical, just minor differences in white balance that are similar between r5 and r8 than between r8 and r6 Ii. Even more similar in capture one. So maybe the jpg engine has been improved but in raw I don’t think there are major differences…

Click to expand...

I gather it’s an optimization of AF detection algorithms and, auto white balance and metering. Been looking hard at RAWs and data available and have unofficially come to the same conclusion. If true, Canon could backport it. They may not for say an R5 given a refresh is imminent for it.

The R3 refresh on the other hand is not. I gather it may get left behind, like the R5 as the R3 is a niche product though. I may ditch as the software is a big deal. It makes say automatic AF “better” than older automatic AF with eye-controlled AF.

Click to expand...

m100 said:

RLight said:

juanmaasecas said:

RLight said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

While studying the R8 and RF 28mm, couple tidbits…

Both the R8 and R50 (and R100) are 86mm in height. I’ve discussed this before, but I gather due to the mount diameter, Canon simply cannot make a body any shorter. Folks have speculated that the EVF could be cut off ala M6, but, I gather there has to be some room for frame, wires, etc, which Canon choose to move the EVF back, instead of down (as they couldn’t go any further down presumably).

I’ve come to realize both through analysis and observation, there’s in fact 3 qualities to compactness…

1. Bulk/stow-ability

2. weight / handling

3. perceived platform

.

Regarding #1, this comes down to how big something is. Pure and simple. Less cubic feet, it fits, or doesn’t. But, things like having a compact pancake prime like the 28mm, and a compact as possible body, can mean something can fit in say a cargo pocket, glovebox, or say fit with a bunch of lenses in a bag. The R8 and RF 28mm really tick boxes here by getting into a form factor in terms of Bulk/stowability as say an M50 or M6 II +EVF + 22mm. Granted I’ve admitted it’s a touch bigger, but in my book, it’s a touch. The glovebox the M6 II + 22 (no EVF) BARELY fit in the glovebox, the R8 + RF 28mm BARELY doesn’t. Both pocket in cargo shorts or jackets. Draw in my book.

.

Regarding #2, again, much like weight and handling, the weight is straightforward, if something weighs less, it weighs less and is easier to carry, causes less fatigue and may be less of a problem in airlines luggage. But regarding handling? I’ve found via the R3, larger grips are good; they mean you have more mechanical advantage. You can carry a heavier body, or heavier attached lens (or both) more easily with less fatigue. Likewise, the width of the strap, influences how the weight is distributed. I noted the R8 + RF 28mm is in fact “lighter” both to hold and sling not because it weighs less (it weighs more), but rather because of the larger grip and larger width of the stock strap (vs the M6 II strap). I find the stock strap “sticks” to me more which I don’t like, but it hasn’t been a problem-problem. But it makes the camera “feel” lighter. Less fatigue, less noticeable. I should add the size of your body / grip should match the footprint of the lens. Don’t let me stop you from shooting an RF 28mm f/2.8 STM on an R3, or the 28-70 f/2L USM on the R8, but each has it’s place. The R8 and RF 28mm “pair” well as do the R3 and 28-70 “pair” well.

.

3. Perceived platform. This has been a recent revelation; what makes a camera noticed? Camera? How big? Glass? How much? People used to ask what camera I shot, when the RF 28-70 f/2L was mounted, on the original Canon R. This was after the R5 and R3 had been released. Folks don’t care about the camera, they care about that glass pointed at them. Likewise, it took me figuring out it’s not just the width of the front element, it’s width of the the lens cap. This now makes more sense why RF-S starts as a 55mm but think funnels down to a crop in width. It reduces both the bulk of the lens but more importantly the perceived footprint by reducing not just the front element, but the front casing, too. This has been part of the missing piece to the puzzle.

.

Regarding the RF 28mm itself… About that PMo glass….

3 PMo, vs 1 ASC on the EF-M 22mm.

Does anyone recall the switch on the EF 100-400L single FL element to multiple non-FL corrective elements which Canon claimed gave the same degree of correction / results without the use of the expensive FL element? History doesn’t repeat, but often rhymes. I personally thought the results between the two were comparable, but the FL element did give a special rendering in my book. I have to say the same here. It produces a similar effect. I’d say outside in harsh lighting, the EF-M 22mm gives a more natural look. But, indoors where you’re dealing with less harsh light, and less of it, I’d say the RF 28mm f/2.8 STM gives a “better” look (on the R8). For its intended use case (less light),

Click to expand...

No, the intended use case is about portability, for light gathering indoors you and I have better options.

m100 said:

I’d say the RF 28mm does it’s intended job well, and does non-intended jobs, pretty respectably thus far.

Click to expand...

A little polarizer filter could be a wise investment.

Click to expand...

I'm not big on filters, but for this lens and scape shooting, sounds interesting

Are you going to buy the 28?

Click to expand...

If Canon comes up with a lens like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I'll sell my Sony stuff.

I have my 50mm f/1.2 GM. You have your ef-m 32mm f/1.4.

My 40mm ART is too heavy and too wide as a 50mm. I'm not gonna do 28mm pancake + 40mm Art + 105mm Art.

I'm not going to invest in RF lenses as long as there's no decent 50mm in the system. Especially not in compact lenses, as Sony FE is my platform for compactness. FE has the 28-60mm, the 760g f/1.2 50mm and 560g 85mm f/1.4 DN. The 28-60mm is compact enough for me. If it's about light gathering I use the 28mm f/1.4 ART via mc11. If it's about wide next to the 50GM the Tamron covers 17-35mm, and that one works via mc11 as well, but - like the 28mm Art I can also use that one on the R5 as a second body. My standard zoom on the R5 does 28mm at f/2.8, so no light gathering advantage there.

I'm enjoying 2 bodies, 50GM+A7IV+ 105Art&R5 is pure gold. I also like 85mm DN + 24-70mkii.

I do wish the some aspects of the A7IV would be on par with the R5, but that RF 50 f/1.2 was just focusing so awfull, and the GM is so much more sophisticated. The A7IV is also a bit smarter in nailing the eye at f/1.2 with faces looking somewat away or down than the R5 with the L.

You can't do "go next face" with the A74. I hate that. The light metering is not as good, and it's also a bit harder to judge what the amount of EC should be from the A74 it's viewfinder. Colors are generally nice, but in tricky circumstances the R5 has an advantage. AF in very low light (true torture territory) is better with the R5 + 40mm Art than A74+50mm GM, but that's wide open at 1/20th with your ISO going out of the athmosphere. GMis still better in light than the L.....

R6II is nice of course, but no decent 50mm, and 24Mp only, and fairly expensive.

R8 has I nice price, but no decent 50mm, 24 Mp only, 2 dials less than the A7IV, no IBIS (a lot of my lenses lack ILIS) and no full mechanical shutter ( I need that for my f/1.4 lenses, especially the 105mm Art).

So if Canon comes up with a 32-45Mp R6mkiii and a lens as good as the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I might get a 28mm pancake as well and who knows an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 as well, but for now it's uncertain if I will stick with Canon. Sony isn't done with improving light metering and colors, and if one body fixes it I'll go that way.

For now I'm trying to make the most of my current gear, not spilling money on gimmick lenses. .

That's me though. I do like it Canon has created this option. Next to a slow kit zoom it's a killer lens. Most customers nowadays don't care for 50mm or longer perspectives anyway, as they are used to phones. And most cusomers don't think about shutterspeeds, making IBIS useless anyway. So all they need is a fast compact lens, a minimum shutter speed of at least 1/250th (like I've set on the 6D of my wife), and a sensor performing great at higher ISO values. Yes, see a market for this stuff.

m100 said:

m100 said:

m100 said:

.

About the STM motor...

The RF28mm f/2.8 STM motor is “fast”, especially compared to the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. That was one gripe I had about EF-M glass, the STM motors on lenses that used non-screw type, were slow. This one, I don’t know if it’s screw or not, but it’s fast.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's important information. The fical length is not challenging and the moving glass ("glass?") weights next nothing, so some hope was justified.

m100 said:

It matters as anyone who’s shot those lenses will tell you.

Click to expand...

Yup

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not to agree with you, but I was thinking Canon is “missing” a 50mm f/1.4 in native RF… Nano USM would be nice.

Click to expand...

Achilles heel of the system, no matter how many fancy pancakes Canon brings out.

m100 said:

Canons not gonna do yet another sensor anytime soon. The R3 and R8 sensors are fierce though; they give a unique rendering. It’s not just how many MP, it’s the quality of the end product it generates.

Click to expand...

I prefer to have both that quality, AND more than 24Mp, so I'm skipping this round.

m100 said:

Honestly the R50 sensor is pretty good too. Again, lenses are the holdout.

I personally would probably not buy a 50L, but a 50 1.4? Yes. Question is, will Canon do it? They were stubborn about not refreshing the EF flavor which makes me think no.

Click to expand...

Canon won't, that's the problem.

Click to expand...

They won’t. But you also have to contend with problems of the other ecosystems. Grass isn’t greener per se. I feel very similar to this to other things in life… Thought about it this morning… The lack of practical 50 doesn’t kill it for me, but historically it has, and I understand very well.

In other news I funneled my question to engineering, we’ll see what becomes of it. They may deflect. Sometimes they answer, they’re quite a proud bunch.

Click to expand...

Who knows what Canon will make now that they have that plastic fantastic lens making machine ?

I hope it is running smooth and that the lenses are a big hit. I like small sharp lenses that don't cost a lot !

Click to expand...

Canon support knows but won’t comment further on changes in firmware. In the past support would try to give me tier 1 advice, they’re not contending I’m doing something wrong but correctly differing Canon could’ve made software changes and could pass them down.

So that’s that. Yes Canon did change stuff (post R6II) and won’t comment further at this time. Same way I handle an internal data where I know the customer is right but can’t disclose.

Edit: my request for subject tracking changes in the R6 II being backported to the R3 is going to ENG. No promises on response. Good. Maybe we’ll get something to the effect of the R getting the RP AF enhancements at such a date.

Click to expand...

I’ve been playing with sample raws from here from r62, r5 and r8 and in Lightroom they look basically identical, just minor differences in white balance that are similar between r5 and r8 than between r8 and r6 Ii. Even more similar in capture one. So maybe the jpg engine has been improved but in raw I don’t think there are major differences…

Click to expand...

I gather it’s an optimization of AF detection algorithms and, auto white balance and metering. Been looking hard at RAWs and data available and have unofficially come to the same conclusion. If true, Canon could backport it. They may not for say an R5 given a refresh is imminent for it.

The R3 refresh on the other hand is not. I gather it may get left behind, like the R5 as the R3 is a niche product though. I may ditch as the software is a big deal. It makes say automatic AF “better” than older automatic AF with eye-controlled AF.

Click to expand...

R8 can make nice SOOC JPEGs to ISO 3200 at least and has the best AF powers !

Sure some good selling points.

Sounds like a keeper. Don't think I could send it back.

Click to expand...

RLight said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

juanmaasecas said:

RLight said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

While studying the R8 and RF 28mm, couple tidbits…

Both the R8 and R50 (and R100) are 86mm in height. I’ve discussed this before, but I gather due to the mount diameter, Canon simply cannot make a body any shorter. Folks have speculated that the EVF could be cut off ala M6, but, I gather there has to be some room for frame, wires, etc, which Canon choose to move the EVF back, instead of down (as they couldn’t go any further down presumably).

I’ve come to realize both through analysis and observation, there’s in fact 3 qualities to compactness…

1. Bulk/stow-ability

2. weight / handling

3. perceived platform

.

Regarding #1, this comes down to how big something is. Pure and simple. Less cubic feet, it fits, or doesn’t. But, things like having a compact pancake prime like the 28mm, and a compact as possible body, can mean something can fit in say a cargo pocket, glovebox, or say fit with a bunch of lenses in a bag. The R8 and RF 28mm really tick boxes here by getting into a form factor in terms of Bulk/stowability as say an M50 or M6 II +EVF + 22mm. Granted I’ve admitted it’s a touch bigger, but in my book, it’s a touch. The glovebox the M6 II + 22 (no EVF) BARELY fit in the glovebox, the R8 + RF 28mm BARELY doesn’t. Both pocket in cargo shorts or jackets. Draw in my book.

.

Regarding #2, again, much like weight and handling, the weight is straightforward, if something weighs less, it weighs less and is easier to carry, causes less fatigue and may be less of a problem in airlines luggage. But regarding handling? I’ve found via the R3, larger grips are good; they mean you have more mechanical advantage. You can carry a heavier body, or heavier attached lens (or both) more easily with less fatigue. Likewise, the width of the strap, influences how the weight is distributed. I noted the R8 + RF 28mm is in fact “lighter” both to hold and sling not because it weighs less (it weighs more), but rather because of the larger grip and larger width of the stock strap (vs the M6 II strap). I find the stock strap “sticks” to me more which I don’t like, but it hasn’t been a problem-problem. But it makes the camera “feel” lighter. Less fatigue, less noticeable. I should add the size of your body / grip should match the footprint of the lens. Don’t let me stop you from shooting an RF 28mm f/2.8 STM on an R3, or the 28-70 f/2L USM on the R8, but each has it’s place. The R8 and RF 28mm “pair” well as do the R3 and 28-70 “pair” well.

.

3. Perceived platform. This has been a recent revelation; what makes a camera noticed? Camera? How big? Glass? How much? People used to ask what camera I shot, when the RF 28-70 f/2L was mounted, on the original Canon R. This was after the R5 and R3 had been released. Folks don’t care about the camera, they care about that glass pointed at them. Likewise, it took me figuring out it’s not just the width of the front element, it’s width of the the lens cap. This now makes more sense why RF-S starts as a 55mm but think funnels down to a crop in width. It reduces both the bulk of the lens but more importantly the perceived footprint by reducing not just the front element, but the front casing, too. This has been part of the missing piece to the puzzle.

.

Regarding the RF 28mm itself… About that PMo glass….

3 PMo, vs 1 ASC on the EF-M 22mm.

Does anyone recall the switch on the EF 100-400L single FL element to multiple non-FL corrective elements which Canon claimed gave the same degree of correction / results without the use of the expensive FL element? History doesn’t repeat, but often rhymes. I personally thought the results between the two were comparable, but the FL element did give a special rendering in my book. I have to say the same here. It produces a similar effect. I’d say outside in harsh lighting, the EF-M 22mm gives a more natural look. But, indoors where you’re dealing with less harsh light, and less of it, I’d say the RF 28mm f/2.8 STM gives a “better” look (on the R8). For its intended use case (less light),

Click to expand...

No, the intended use case is about portability, for light gathering indoors you and I have better options.

RLight said:

I’d say the RF 28mm does it’s intended job well, and does non-intended jobs, pretty respectably thus far.

Click to expand...

A little polarizer filter could be a wise investment.

Click to expand...

I'm not big on filters, but for this lens and scape shooting, sounds interesting

Are you going to buy the 28?

Click to expand...

If Canon comes up with a lens like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I'll sell my Sony stuff.

I have my 50mm f/1.2 GM. You have your ef-m 32mm f/1.4.

My 40mm ART is too heavy and too wide as a 50mm. I'm not gonna do 28mm pancake + 40mm Art + 105mm Art.

I'm not going to invest in RF lenses as long as there's no decent 50mm in the system. Especially not in compact lenses, as Sony FE is my platform for compactness. FE has the 28-60mm, the 760g f/1.2 50mm and 560g 85mm f/1.4 DN. The 28-60mm is compact enough for me. If it's about light gathering I use the 28mm f/1.4 ART via mc11. If it's about wide next to the 50GM the Tamron covers 17-35mm, and that one works via mc11 as well, but - like the 28mm Art I can also use that one on the R5 as a second body. My standard zoom on the R5 does 28mm at f/2.8, so no light gathering advantage there.

I'm enjoying 2 bodies, 50GM+A7IV+ 105Art&R5 is pure gold. I also like 85mm DN + 24-70mkii.

I do wish the some aspects of the A7IV would be on par with the R5, but that RF 50 f/1.2 was just focusing so awfull, and the GM is so much more sophisticated. The A7IV is also a bit smarter in nailing the eye at f/1.2 with faces looking somewat away or down than the R5 with the L.

You can't do "go next face" with the A74. I hate that. The light metering is not as good, and it's also a bit harder to judge what the amount of EC should be from the A74 it's viewfinder. Colors are generally nice, but in tricky circumstances the R5 has an advantage. AF in very low light (true torture territory) is better with the R5 + 40mm Art than A74+50mm GM, but that's wide open at 1/20th with your ISO going out of the athmosphere. GMis still better in light than the L.....

R6II is nice of course, but no decent 50mm, and 24Mp only, and fairly expensive.

R8 has I nice price, but no decent 50mm, 24 Mp only, 2 dials less than the A7IV, no IBIS (a lot of my lenses lack ILIS) and no full mechanical shutter ( I need that for my f/1.4 lenses, especially the 105mm Art).

So if Canon comes up with a 32-45Mp R6mkiii and a lens as good as the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I might get a 28mm pancake as well and who knows an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 as well, but for now it's uncertain if I will stick with Canon. Sony isn't done with improving light metering and colors, and if one body fixes it I'll go that way.

For now I'm trying to make the most of my current gear, not spilling money on gimmick lenses. .

That's me though. I do like it Canon has created this option. Next to a slow kit zoom it's a killer lens. Most customers nowadays don't care for 50mm or longer perspectives anyway, as they are used to phones. And most cusomers don't think about shutterspeeds, making IBIS useless anyway. So all they need is a fast compact lens, a minimum shutter speed of at least 1/250th (like I've set on the 6D of my wife), and a sensor performing great at higher ISO values. Yes, see a market for this stuff.

RLight said:

RLight said:

RLight said:

.

About the STM motor...

The RF28mm f/2.8 STM motor is “fast”, especially compared to the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. That was one gripe I had about EF-M glass, the STM motors on lenses that used non-screw type, were slow. This one, I don’t know if it’s screw or not, but it’s fast.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's important information. The fical length is not challenging and the moving glass ("glass?") weights next nothing, so some hope was justified.

RLight said:

It matters as anyone who’s shot those lenses will tell you.

Click to expand...

Yup

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not to agree with you, but I was thinking Canon is “missing” a 50mm f/1.4 in native RF… Nano USM would be nice.

Click to expand...

Achilles heel of the system, no matter how many fancy pancakes Canon brings out.

RLight said:

Canons not gonna do yet another sensor anytime soon. The R3 and R8 sensors are fierce though; they give a unique rendering. It’s not just how many MP, it’s the quality of the end product it generates.

Click to expand...

I prefer to have both that quality, AND more than 24Mp, so I'm skipping this round.

RLight said:

Honestly the R50 sensor is pretty good too. Again, lenses are the holdout.

I personally would probably not buy a 50L, but a 50 1.4? Yes. Question is, will Canon do it? They were stubborn about not refreshing the EF flavor which makes me think no.

Click to expand...

Canon won't, that's the problem.

Click to expand...

They won’t. But you also have to contend with problems of the other ecosystems. Grass isn’t greener per se. I feel very similar to this to other things in life… Thought about it this morning… The lack of practical 50 doesn’t kill it for me, but historically it has, and I understand very well.

In other news I funneled my question to engineering, we’ll see what becomes of it. They may deflect. Sometimes they answer, they’re quite a proud bunch.

Click to expand...

Who knows what Canon will make now that they have that plastic fantastic lens making machine ?

I hope it is running smooth and that the lenses are a big hit. I like small sharp lenses that don't cost a lot !

Click to expand...

Canon support knows but won’t comment further on changes in firmware. In the past support would try to give me tier 1 advice, they’re not contending I’m doing something wrong but correctly differing Canon could’ve made software changes and could pass them down.

So that’s that. Yes Canon did change stuff (post R6II) and won’t comment further at this time. Same way I handle an internal data where I know the customer is right but can’t disclose.

Edit: my request for subject tracking changes in the R6 II being backported to the R3 is going to ENG. No promises on response. Good. Maybe we’ll get something to the effect of the R getting the RP AF enhancements at such a date.

Click to expand...

I’ve been playing with sample raws from here from r62, r5 and r8 and in Lightroom they look basically identical, just minor differences in white balance that are similar between r5 and r8 than between r8 and r6 Ii. Even more similar in capture one. So maybe the jpg engine has been improved but in raw I don’t think there are major differences…

Click to expand...

I gather it’s an optimization of AF detection algorithms and, auto white balance and metering. Been looking hard at RAWs and data available and have unofficially come to the same conclusion. If true, Canon could backport it. They may not for say an R5 given a refresh is imminent for it.

The R3 refresh on the other hand is not. I gather it may get left behind, like the R5 as the R3 is a niche product though. I may ditch as the software is a big deal. It makes say automatic AF “better” than older automatic AF with eye-controlled AF.

Click to expand...

R8 can make nice SOOC JPEGs to ISO 3200 at least and has the best AF powers !

Sure some good selling points.

Sounds like a keeper. Don't think I could send it back.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

MAC said:

RLight said:

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

lots of people are going to want to swap out your R3 for their brand new R6II even trade -- and you'd say they are dumb

Click to expand...

RLight said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

juanmaasecas said:

RLight said:

m100 said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

While studying the R8 and RF 28mm, couple tidbits…

Both the R8 and R50 (and R100) are 86mm in height. I’ve discussed this before, but I gather due to the mount diameter, Canon simply cannot make a body any shorter. Folks have speculated that the EVF could be cut off ala M6, but, I gather there has to be some room for frame, wires, etc, which Canon choose to move the EVF back, instead of down (as they couldn’t go any further down presumably).

I’ve come to realize both through analysis and observation, there’s in fact 3 qualities to compactness…

1. Bulk/stow-ability

2. weight / handling

3. perceived platform

.

Regarding #1, this comes down to how big something is. Pure and simple. Less cubic feet, it fits, or doesn’t. But, things like having a compact pancake prime like the 28mm, and a compact as possible body, can mean something can fit in say a cargo pocket, glovebox, or say fit with a bunch of lenses in a bag. The R8 and RF 28mm really tick boxes here by getting into a form factor in terms of Bulk/stowability as say an M50 or M6 II +EVF + 22mm. Granted I’ve admitted it’s a touch bigger, but in my book, it’s a touch. The glovebox the M6 II + 22 (no EVF) BARELY fit in the glovebox, the R8 + RF 28mm BARELY doesn’t. Both pocket in cargo shorts or jackets. Draw in my book.

.

Regarding #2, again, much like weight and handling, the weight is straightforward, if something weighs less, it weighs less and is easier to carry, causes less fatigue and may be less of a problem in airlines luggage. But regarding handling? I’ve found via the R3, larger grips are good; they mean you have more mechanical advantage. You can carry a heavier body, or heavier attached lens (or both) more easily with less fatigue. Likewise, the width of the strap, influences how the weight is distributed. I noted the R8 + RF 28mm is in fact “lighter” both to hold and sling not because it weighs less (it weighs more), but rather because of the larger grip and larger width of the stock strap (vs the M6 II strap). I find the stock strap “sticks” to me more which I don’t like, but it hasn’t been a problem-problem. But it makes the camera “feel” lighter. Less fatigue, less noticeable. I should add the size of your body / grip should match the footprint of the lens. Don’t let me stop you from shooting an RF 28mm f/2.8 STM on an R3, or the 28-70 f/2L USM on the R8, but each has it’s place. The R8 and RF 28mm “pair” well as do the R3 and 28-70 “pair” well.

.

3. Perceived platform. This has been a recent revelation; what makes a camera noticed? Camera? How big? Glass? How much? People used to ask what camera I shot, when the RF 28-70 f/2L was mounted, on the original Canon R. This was after the R5 and R3 had been released. Folks don’t care about the camera, they care about that glass pointed at them. Likewise, it took me figuring out it’s not just the width of the front element, it’s width of the the lens cap. This now makes more sense why RF-S starts as a 55mm but think funnels down to a crop in width. It reduces both the bulk of the lens but more importantly the perceived footprint by reducing not just the front element, but the front casing, too. This has been part of the missing piece to the puzzle.

.

Regarding the RF 28mm itself… About that PMo glass….

3 PMo, vs 1 ASC on the EF-M 22mm.

Does anyone recall the switch on the EF 100-400L single FL element to multiple non-FL corrective elements which Canon claimed gave the same degree of correction / results without the use of the expensive FL element? History doesn’t repeat, but often rhymes. I personally thought the results between the two were comparable, but the FL element did give a special rendering in my book. I have to say the same here. It produces a similar effect. I’d say outside in harsh lighting, the EF-M 22mm gives a more natural look. But, indoors where you’re dealing with less harsh light, and less of it, I’d say the RF 28mm f/2.8 STM gives a “better” look (on the R8). For its intended use case (less light),

Click to expand...

No, the intended use case is about portability, for light gathering indoors you and I have better options.

RLight said:

I’d say the RF 28mm does it’s intended job well, and does non-intended jobs, pretty respectably thus far.

Click to expand...

A little polarizer filter could be a wise investment.

Click to expand...

I'm not big on filters, but for this lens and scape shooting, sounds interesting

Are you going to buy the 28?

Click to expand...

If Canon comes up with a lens like the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I'll sell my Sony stuff.

I have my 50mm f/1.2 GM. You have your ef-m 32mm f/1.4.

My 40mm ART is too heavy and too wide as a 50mm. I'm not gonna do 28mm pancake + 40mm Art + 105mm Art.

I'm not going to invest in RF lenses as long as there's no decent 50mm in the system. Especially not in compact lenses, as Sony FE is my platform for compactness. FE has the 28-60mm, the 760g f/1.2 50mm and 560g 85mm f/1.4 DN. The 28-60mm is compact enough for me. If it's about light gathering I use the 28mm f/1.4 ART via mc11. If it's about wide next to the 50GM the Tamron covers 17-35mm, and that one works via mc11 as well, but - like the 28mm Art I can also use that one on the R5 as a second body. My standard zoom on the R5 does 28mm at f/2.8, so no light gathering advantage there.

I'm enjoying 2 bodies, 50GM+A7IV+ 105Art&R5 is pure gold. I also like 85mm DN + 24-70mkii.

I do wish the some aspects of the A7IV would be on par with the R5, but that RF 50 f/1.2 was just focusing so awfull, and the GM is so much more sophisticated. The A7IV is also a bit smarter in nailing the eye at f/1.2 with faces looking somewat away or down than the R5 with the L.

You can't do "go next face" with the A74. I hate that. The light metering is not as good, and it's also a bit harder to judge what the amount of EC should be from the A74 it's viewfinder. Colors are generally nice, but in tricky circumstances the R5 has an advantage. AF in very low light (true torture territory) is better with the R5 + 40mm Art than A74+50mm GM, but that's wide open at 1/20th with your ISO going out of the athmosphere. GMis still better in light than the L.....

R6II is nice of course, but no decent 50mm, and 24Mp only, and fairly expensive.

R8 has I nice price, but no decent 50mm, 24 Mp only, 2 dials less than the A7IV, no IBIS (a lot of my lenses lack ILIS) and no full mechanical shutter ( I need that for my f/1.4 lenses, especially the 105mm Art).

So if Canon comes up with a 32-45Mp R6mkiii and a lens as good as the FE 50mm f/1.4 GM I might get a 28mm pancake as well and who knows an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 as well, but for now it's uncertain if I will stick with Canon. Sony isn't done with improving light metering and colors, and if one body fixes it I'll go that way.

For now I'm trying to make the most of my current gear, not spilling money on gimmick lenses. .

That's me though. I do like it Canon has created this option. Next to a slow kit zoom it's a killer lens. Most customers nowadays don't care for 50mm or longer perspectives anyway, as they are used to phones. And most cusomers don't think about shutterspeeds, making IBIS useless anyway. So all they need is a fast compact lens, a minimum shutter speed of at least 1/250th (like I've set on the 6D of my wife), and a sensor performing great at higher ISO values. Yes, see a market for this stuff.

RLight said:

RLight said:

RLight said:

.

About the STM motor...

The RF28mm f/2.8 STM motor is “fast”, especially compared to the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. That was one gripe I had about EF-M glass, the STM motors on lenses that used non-screw type, were slow. This one, I don’t know if it’s screw or not, but it’s fast.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's important information. The fical length is not challenging and the moving glass ("glass?") weights next nothing, so some hope was justified.

RLight said:

It matters as anyone who’s shot those lenses will tell you.

Click to expand...

Yup

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not to agree with you, but I was thinking Canon is “missing” a 50mm f/1.4 in native RF… Nano USM would be nice.

Click to expand...

Achilles heel of the system, no matter how many fancy pancakes Canon brings out.

RLight said:

Canons not gonna do yet another sensor anytime soon. The R3 and R8 sensors are fierce though; they give a unique rendering. It’s not just how many MP, it’s the quality of the end product it generates.

Click to expand...

I prefer to have both that quality, AND more than 24Mp, so I'm skipping this round.

RLight said:

Honestly the R50 sensor is pretty good too. Again, lenses are the holdout.

I personally would probably not buy a 50L, but a 50 1.4? Yes. Question is, will Canon do it? They were stubborn about not refreshing the EF flavor which makes me think no.

Click to expand...

Canon won't, that's the problem.

Click to expand...

They won’t. But you also have to contend with problems of the other ecosystems. Grass isn’t greener per se. I feel very similar to this to other things in life… Thought about it this morning… The lack of practical 50 doesn’t kill it for me, but historically it has, and I understand very well.

In other news I funneled my question to engineering, we’ll see what becomes of it. They may deflect. Sometimes they answer, they’re quite a proud bunch.

Click to expand...

Who knows what Canon will make now that they have that plastic fantastic lens making machine ?

I hope it is running smooth and that the lenses are a big hit. I like small sharp lenses that don't cost a lot !

Click to expand...

Canon support knows but won’t comment further on changes in firmware. In the past support would try to give me tier 1 advice, they’re not contending I’m doing something wrong but correctly differing Canon could’ve made software changes and could pass them down.

So that’s that. Yes Canon did change stuff (post R6II) and won’t comment further at this time. Same way I handle an internal data where I know the customer is right but can’t disclose.

Edit: my request for subject tracking changes in the R6 II being backported to the R3 is going to ENG. No promises on response. Good. Maybe we’ll get something to the effect of the R getting the RP AF enhancements at such a date.

Click to expand...

I’ve been playing with sample raws from here from r62, r5 and r8 and in Lightroom they look basically identical, just minor differences in white balance that are similar between r5 and r8 than between r8 and r6 Ii. Even more similar in capture one. So maybe the jpg engine has been improved but in raw I don’t think there are major differences…

Click to expand...

I gather it’s an optimization of AF detection algorithms and, auto white balance and metering. Been looking hard at RAWs and data available and have unofficially come to the same conclusion. If true, Canon could backport it. They may not for say an R5 given a refresh is imminent for it.

The R3 refresh on the other hand is not. I gather it may get left behind, like the R5 as the R3 is a niche product though. I may ditch as the software is a big deal. It makes say automatic AF “better” than older automatic AF with eye-controlled AF.

Click to expand...

R8 can make nice SOOC JPEGs to ISO 3200 at least and has the best AF powers !

Sure some good selling points.

Sounds like a keeper. Don't think I could send it back.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

m100 said:

RLight said:

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

You are wanting a R6II now ?

Click to expand...

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

lots of people are going to want to swap out your R3 for their brand new R6II even trade -- and you'd say they are dumb

Click to expand...

I'm not turning in my R3 just yet; but at the same time I wouldn't recommend an R3 over an R6 II anymore than I'd recommend an M5 over an M50... In both cases, the more expensive, "higher-end" product is inferior to the latter in my book. I already have the R3 so I'm in no rush,

Click to expand...

RLight said:

but if I could do again? R6 II.

Click to expand...

RLight said:

The R3 still has an advantage with event shooting;

Click to expand...

RLight said:

it may have inferior AF tracking and subject detection, but, eye-controlled AF (which works for me) is VASTLY superior for subject selection. Period. When Canon marries the two in a R5 II, R1, whatever? It's gonna be vicious. Or if Canon updates the R3 firmware (they may, should, but not betting they will)

Going over Canon's own documentation a little closer...

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-af.html

Sounds like two, three things are happening...

1. Improved subject detection and number of subjects detected

2. Linked AF profiles to subjects detected (smart; think the camera automatically adjusts AF case for subject detected; my R3 is "bullet-proof", if, you're using the right AF case for the right subject. But switching is, well, work, and takes thought) This can REALLY work well when combined with #1 where "head detection", which works nicely in the R8, sets a very "sticky" threshold to ignore objects getting in the way (AF case 2) or automatically setting AF case 3 (quick lock on things entering view) for Trains (new number of things detected) or cars, airplanes (another new one). I gather general multi-purpose (Case 1) now actually shifts to AF case based off subject detected, but uses AF Case 1, if something isn't correlated otherwise.

3. Improved sharpness, possibly JPEG engine or aberration processing.

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-highquality.html

I had assumed the latter was R3 and newer, no, it sounds like R6 II and newer, the R3 got "missed" for that newer processing. Boooo.

Anyhow, curious what Canon ENG writes back, if anything.

Click to expand...

MAC said:

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

lots of people are going to want to swap out your R3 for their brand new R6II even trade -- and you'd say they are dumb

Click to expand...

I'm not turning in my R3 just yet; but at the same time I wouldn't recommend an R3 over an R6 II anymore than I'd recommend an M5 over an M50... In both cases, the more expensive, "higher-end" product is inferior to the latter in my book. I already have the R3 so I'm in no rush,

but if I could do again? R6 II.

Click to expand...

I thought at the time you were overpaying for being on the bleeding edge

MAC said:

The R3 still has an advantage with event shooting;

Click to expand...

agreed, for those involved frequently with events

MAC said:

it may have inferior AF tracking and subject detection, but, eye-controlled AF (which works for me) is VASTLY superior for subject selection. Period. When Canon marries the two in a R5 II, R1, whatever? It's gonna be vicious. Or if Canon updates the R3 firmware (they may, should, but not betting they will)

Going over Canon's own documentation a little closer...

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-af.html

Sounds like two, three things are happening...

1. Improved subject detection and number of subjects detected

2. Linked AF profiles to subjects detected (smart; think the camera automatically adjusts AF case for subject detected; my R3 is "bullet-proof", if, you're using the right AF case for the right subject. But switching is, well, work, and takes thought) This can REALLY work well when combined with #1 where "head detection", which works nicely in the R8, sets a very "sticky" threshold to ignore objects getting in the way (AF case 2) or automatically setting AF case 3 (quick lock on things entering view) for Trains (new number of things detected) or cars, airplanes (another new one). I gather general multi-purpose (Case 1) now actually shifts to AF case based off subject detected, but uses AF Case 1, if something isn't correlated otherwise.

3. Improved sharpness, possibly JPEG engine or aberration processing.

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-highquality.html

I had assumed the latter was R3 and newer, no, it sounds like R6 II and newer, the R3 got "missed" for that newer processing. Boooo.

Anyhow, curious what Canon ENG writes back, if anything.

Click to expand...

maybe they'll say you'll really enjoy the upcoming R1

Click to expand...

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

lots of people are going to want to swap out your R3 for their brand new R6II even trade -- and you'd say they are dumb

Click to expand...

I'm not turning in my R3 just yet; but at the same time I wouldn't recommend an R3 over an R6 II anymore than I'd recommend an M5 over an M50... In both cases, the more expensive, "higher-end" product is inferior to the latter in my book. I already have the R3 so I'm in no rush,

but if I could do again? R6 II.

Click to expand...

I thought at the time you were overpaying for being on the bleeding edge

RLight said:

The R3 still has an advantage with event shooting;

Click to expand...

agreed, for those involved frequently with events

RLight said:

it may have inferior AF tracking and subject detection, but, eye-controlled AF (which works for me) is VASTLY superior for subject selection. Period. When Canon marries the two in a R5 II, R1, whatever? It's gonna be vicious. Or if Canon updates the R3 firmware (they may, should, but not betting they will)

Going over Canon's own documentation a little closer...

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-af.html

Sounds like two, three things are happening...

1. Improved subject detection and number of subjects detected

2. Linked AF profiles to subjects detected (smart; think the camera automatically adjusts AF case for subject detected; my R3 is "bullet-proof", if, you're using the right AF case for the right subject. But switching is, well, work, and takes thought) This can REALLY work well when combined with #1 where "head detection", which works nicely in the R8, sets a very "sticky" threshold to ignore objects getting in the way (AF case 2) or automatically setting AF case 3 (quick lock on things entering view) for Trains (new number of things detected) or cars, airplanes (another new one). I gather general multi-purpose (Case 1) now actually shifts to AF case based off subject detected, but uses AF Case 1, if something isn't correlated otherwise.

3. Improved sharpness, possibly JPEG engine or aberration processing.

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-highquality.html

I had assumed the latter was R3 and newer, no, it sounds like R6 II and newer, the R3 got "missed" for that newer processing. Boooo.

Anyhow, curious what Canon ENG writes back, if anything.

Click to expand...

maybe they'll say you'll really enjoy the upcoming R1

Click to expand...

Um no. I like 24MP and prefer “clean” output. Going to 45 has a “cost” in ISO performance.

Click to expand...

MAC said:

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

lots of people are going to want to swap out your R3 for their brand new R6II even trade -- and you'd say they are dumb

Click to expand...

I'm not turning in my R3 just yet; but at the same time I wouldn't recommend an R3 over an R6 II anymore than I'd recommend an M5 over an M50... In both cases, the more expensive, "higher-end" product is inferior to the latter in my book. I already have the R3 so I'm in no rush,

but if I could do again? R6 II.

Click to expand...

I thought at the time you were overpaying for being on the bleeding edge

MAC said:

The R3 still has an advantage with event shooting;

Click to expand...

agreed, for those involved frequently with events

MAC said:

it may have inferior AF tracking and subject detection, but, eye-controlled AF (which works for me) is VASTLY superior for subject selection. Period. When Canon marries the two in a R5 II, R1, whatever? It's gonna be vicious. Or if Canon updates the R3 firmware (they may, should, but not betting they will)

Going over Canon's own documentation a little closer...

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-af.html

Sounds like two, three things are happening...

1. Improved subject detection and number of subjects detected

2. Linked AF profiles to subjects detected (smart; think the camera automatically adjusts AF case for subject detected; my R3 is "bullet-proof", if, you're using the right AF case for the right subject. But switching is, well, work, and takes thought) This can REALLY work well when combined with #1 where "head detection", which works nicely in the R8, sets a very "sticky" threshold to ignore objects getting in the way (AF case 2) or automatically setting AF case 3 (quick lock on things entering view) for Trains (new number of things detected) or cars, airplanes (another new one). I gather general multi-purpose (Case 1) now actually shifts to AF case based off subject detected, but uses AF Case 1, if something isn't correlated otherwise.

3. Improved sharpness, possibly JPEG engine or aberration processing.

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-highquality.html

I had assumed the latter was R3 and newer, no, it sounds like R6 II and newer, the R3 got "missed" for that newer processing. Boooo.

Anyhow, curious what Canon ENG writes back, if anything.

Click to expand...

maybe they'll say you'll really enjoy the upcoming R1

Click to expand...

Um no. I like 24MP and prefer “clean” output. Going to 45 has a “cost” in ISO performance.

Click to expand...

the R8's 24 MP sensor is the best sensor I've ever had.

the R8's AF is better than Sony's and Nikon's best cameras

it is a joke that DP Review only gave the R8 the Silver, and it is interesting they gave the Gold award to the A6700 when the IQ is clearly much better on the R8

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I think the 28 makes sense for you on your R8

add back the 24-240 and you'll have a perfect setup

Click to expand...

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

lots of people are going to want to swap out your R3 for their brand new R6II even trade -- and you'd say they are dumb

Click to expand...

I'm not turning in my R3 just yet; but at the same time I wouldn't recommend an R3 over an R6 II anymore than I'd recommend an M5 over an M50... In both cases, the more expensive, "higher-end" product is inferior to the latter in my book. I already have the R3 so I'm in no rush,

but if I could do again? R6 II.

Click to expand...

I thought at the time you were overpaying for being on the bleeding edge

RLight said:

The R3 still has an advantage with event shooting;

Click to expand...

agreed, for those involved frequently with events

RLight said:

it may have inferior AF tracking and subject detection, but, eye-controlled AF (which works for me) is VASTLY superior for subject selection. Period. When Canon marries the two in a R5 II, R1, whatever? It's gonna be vicious. Or if Canon updates the R3 firmware (they may, should, but not betting they will)

Going over Canon's own documentation a little closer...

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-af.html

Sounds like two, three things are happening...

1. Improved subject detection and number of subjects detected

2. Linked AF profiles to subjects detected (smart; think the camera automatically adjusts AF case for subject detected; my R3 is "bullet-proof", if, you're using the right AF case for the right subject. But switching is, well, work, and takes thought) This can REALLY work well when combined with #1 where "head detection", which works nicely in the R8, sets a very "sticky" threshold to ignore objects getting in the way (AF case 2) or automatically setting AF case 3 (quick lock on things entering view) for Trains (new number of things detected) or cars, airplanes (another new one). I gather general multi-purpose (Case 1) now actually shifts to AF case based off subject detected, but uses AF Case 1, if something isn't correlated otherwise.

3. Improved sharpness, possibly JPEG engine or aberration processing.

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-highquality.html

I had assumed the latter was R3 and newer, no, it sounds like R6 II and newer, the R3 got "missed" for that newer processing. Boooo.

Anyhow, curious what Canon ENG writes back, if anything.

Click to expand...

maybe they'll say you'll really enjoy the upcoming R1

Click to expand...

Um no. I like 24MP and prefer “clean” output. Going to 45 has a “cost” in ISO performance.

Click to expand...

the R8's 24 MP sensor is the best sensor I've ever had.

the R8's AF is better than Sony's and Nikon's best cameras

it is a joke that DP Review only gave the R8 the Silver, and it is interesting they gave the Gold award to the A6700 when the IQ is clearly much better on the R8

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I think the 28 makes sense for you on your R8

add back the 24-240 and you'll have a perfect setup

Click to expand...

I’m tempted to return the R8 w/24-50, because, I’ll probably never use the 24-50, and rebuy body only. Such a waste though, hence why I haven’t… thoughts?

Click to expand...

RLight said:

I had a feeling, and it appears correct. The 24-240 just beats it over the head. I could keep it as a hiking option, but I found the CA, even corrected, it’s extreme.

Click to expand...

RLight said:

Candid test, f/2.8

Click to expand...

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

lots of people are going to want to swap out your R3 for their brand new R6II even trade -- and you'd say they are dumb

Click to expand...

I'm not turning in my R3 just yet; but at the same time I wouldn't recommend an R3 over an R6 II anymore than I'd recommend an M5 over an M50... In both cases, the more expensive, "higher-end" product is inferior to the latter in my book. I already have the R3 so I'm in no rush,

but if I could do again? R6 II.

Click to expand...

I thought at the time you were overpaying for being on the bleeding edge

RLight said:

The R3 still has an advantage with event shooting;

Click to expand...

agreed, for those involved frequently with events

RLight said:

it may have inferior AF tracking and subject detection, but, eye-controlled AF (which works for me) is VASTLY superior for subject selection. Period. When Canon marries the two in a R5 II, R1, whatever? It's gonna be vicious. Or if Canon updates the R3 firmware (they may, should, but not betting they will)

Going over Canon's own documentation a little closer...

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-af.html

Sounds like two, three things are happening...

1. Improved subject detection and number of subjects detected

2. Linked AF profiles to subjects detected (smart; think the camera automatically adjusts AF case for subject detected; my R3 is "bullet-proof", if, you're using the right AF case for the right subject. But switching is, well, work, and takes thought) This can REALLY work well when combined with #1 where "head detection", which works nicely in the R8, sets a very "sticky" threshold to ignore objects getting in the way (AF case 2) or automatically setting AF case 3 (quick lock on things entering view) for Trains (new number of things detected) or cars, airplanes (another new one). I gather general multi-purpose (Case 1) now actually shifts to AF case based off subject detected, but uses AF Case 1, if something isn't correlated otherwise.

3. Improved sharpness, possibly JPEG engine or aberration processing.

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-highquality.html

I had assumed the latter was R3 and newer, no, it sounds like R6 II and newer, the R3 got "missed" for that newer processing. Boooo.

Anyhow, curious what Canon ENG writes back, if anything.

Click to expand...

maybe they'll say you'll really enjoy the upcoming R1

Click to expand...

Um no. I like 24MP and prefer “clean” output. Going to 45 has a “cost” in ISO performance.

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

MAC said:

RLight said:

I was referring to the R6 II… it’s “better” than the R3, and cheaper. Like Canon fix, or you’re dumb to buy one over the other to put in layman terms.

Click to expand...

lots of people are going to want to swap out your R3 for their brand new R6II even trade -- and you'd say they are dumb

Click to expand...

I'm not turning in my R3 just yet; but at the same time I wouldn't recommend an R3 over an R6 II anymore than I'd recommend an M5 over an M50... In both cases, the more expensive, "higher-end" product is inferior to the latter in my book. I already have the R3 so I'm in no rush,

but if I could do again? R6 II.

Click to expand...

I thought at the time you were overpaying for being on the bleeding edge

thunder storm said:

The R3 still has an advantage with event shooting;

Click to expand...

agreed, for those involved frequently with events

thunder storm said:

it may have inferior AF tracking and subject detection, but, eye-controlled AF (which works for me) is VASTLY superior for subject selection. Period. When Canon marries the two in a R5 II, R1, whatever? It's gonna be vicious. Or if Canon updates the R3 firmware (they may, should, but not betting they will)

Going over Canon's own documentation a little closer...

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-af.html

Sounds like two, three things are happening...

1. Improved subject detection and number of subjects detected

2. Linked AF profiles to subjects detected (smart; think the camera automatically adjusts AF case for subject detected; my R3 is "bullet-proof", if, you're using the right AF case for the right subject. But switching is, well, work, and takes thought) This can REALLY work well when combined with #1 where "head detection", which works nicely in the R8, sets a very "sticky" threshold to ignore objects getting in the way (AF case 2) or automatically setting AF case 3 (quick lock on things entering view) for Trains (new number of things detected) or cars, airplanes (another new one). I gather general multi-purpose (Case 1) now actually shifts to AF case based off subject detected, but uses AF Case 1, if something isn't correlated otherwise.

3. Improved sharpness, possibly JPEG engine or aberration processing.

https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/r6mk2/feature-highquality.html

I had assumed the latter was R3 and newer, no, it sounds like R6 II and newer, the R3 got "missed" for that newer processing. Boooo.

Anyhow, curious what Canon ENG writes back, if anything.

Click to expand...

maybe they'll say you'll really enjoy the upcoming R1

Click to expand...

Um no. I like 24MP and prefer “clean” output. Going to 45 has a “cost” in ISO performance.

Click to expand...

At picture level -not pixel level - that's not really a physical law.

I wonder if anyone would find a difference in a double blind test, having the 45MP pics downsampled to 24Mp.

The difference in detail level at ISO 1250 and lower are easier to spot, assumed good glass is used, and the shutter speeds are adequate for 45Mp.

My 105 Art can act like an 150ish mm 24Mp equivalent on my R5 when cropping.

Click to expand...

cocoanud said:

RLight said:

Candid test, f/2.8

Click to expand...

It's uncanny how well exposed and well rendered this came out SOOC ! Most of the image is just shadows.

Click to expand...

RLight said:

cocoanud said:

RLight said:

Candid test, f/2.8

Click to expand...

It's uncanny how well exposed and well rendered this came out SOOC ! Most of the image is just shadows.

Click to expand...

As I said, SOOC is a treat from the R8.

The R50 is similar btw, but, with less interesting lenses. That 28 does scratch the itch. A 35 1.8 should, too.

Click to expand...