RF "holy trio" pricing. Holy S....

[diness]

If the rumors sites are on target, and they can be sometimes, the upcoming f2.8 trio of RF zooms will not be cheap. In fact, if the predicted prices are right, well, out of my range.

• Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 93,500 THB – $2799 USD

Amazing how many responses there are admonishing you for suggesting that $2500+ is a lot for a lens.... If I ever move to the R system, I sure hope that Tamron moves some of their popular FE lenses over to Canon so there can be some reasonably priced f2.8 options. I'm sure these lenses will be fantastic, but man that's a lot of money.

All Canon L lenses are expensive as they are premium lenses.

Kind of, but as you show in your own post, there are some that are much less. I have owned the 24-105 f4L, 17-40 f4L, 70-200 f4L and 70-200 f2.8L which were all reasonably priced.

Yes, but the discussion is not about f4 lenses. F4 lenses will be less but the market demands f2.8 at the moment and Canon will oblige.

Didnt say it was, you just said that L lenses were all Inherently expensive and I pointed out that it’s not necessarily the case

The f4 lenses will come later and scoop up those buyers waiting for them. On the 70-200 2.8 the lack of IS keeps the price low. These days, many see that as an uncompetitive lens despite its inarguable IQ.

The 15-30 and 24-70 will both have IS that is currently absent from the EF16-35 and EF 24-70. The 70-200 is a new design. While the prices posted are speculative, they are not unreasonable considering the value being delivered for new designs in 2019.

And maybe it is fair value, but that doesn’t make it not expensive. My point was that so many people are responding with “you gotta pay to play” And “this is an expensive hobby buck up” to the OP, when all he said was that $2200+ is a lot to pay for these new lenses. And it is.

Tamron makes good lenses but the fact that there is robust demand for premium priced lenses (even f4) tells us that buyers believe in Canon magic.

What tells you there’s a robust demand? Canon is capitalizing on the fact that there are no other RF lenses available. Sonys lens mount is open and when Tamron came out with an affordable f2.8 standard zoom that performed very well, it sold like crazy and you could hardly find the thing. My hunch is if that same lens was available for RF mount it would sell like crazy there too

 

[dmanthree]

If the rumors sites are on target, and they can be sometimes, the upcoming f2.8 trio of RF zooms will not be cheap. In fact, if the predicted prices are right, well, out of my range.

• Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 93,500 THB – $2799 USD

Amazing how many responses there are admonishing you for suggesting that $2500+ is a lot for a lens.... If I ever move to the R system, I sure hope that Tamron moves some of their popular FE lenses over to Canon so there can be some reasonably priced f2.8 options. I'm sure these lenses will be fantastic, but man that's a lot of money.

Yes, and one accusation that I don't understand inflation. I thought that if it was easier to design lenses for the RF mount, then they might cost less.

Silly me.

 

[dmanthree]

Tamron makes good lenses but the fact that there is robust demand for premium priced lenses (even f4) tells us that buyers believe in Canon magic.

I'm curious to see what the actual demand for these lenses is.

If they are priced close to what is indicated, then I don't expect that it is a big market - pros and some enthusiasts (I expect people here enthusiastic about these lenses skew real world demand).

I'm curious to see who buys glass at this level without a "pro" body. The R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model. So will current R users pony up the cash for these? Will Canon introduce or announce the development of a higher end body?

 

[lawny13]

Tamron makes good lenses but the fact that there is robust demand for premium priced lenses (even f4) tells us that buyers believe in Canon magic.

I'm curious to see what the actual demand for these lenses is.

If they are priced close to what is indicated, then I don't expect that it is a big market - pros and some enthusiasts (I expect people here enthusiastic about these lenses skew real world demand).

I'm curious to see who buys glass at this level without a "pro" body. The R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model. So will current R users pony up the cash for these? Will Canon introduce or announce the development of a higher end body?

Hmmm... the same kind of people who were placing GM lenses on the sony mk2 bodies?

I keep reading that the R is no pro body. And by canon's own standards even the 5D line was not "pro".

So... no dual cards, doesn't affect the images coming out of the camera.

So... no IBIS, but basically all DSLRs didn't have this.

So... no 8fps with live view update, but most people don't need this (though it is nice to have).



For anyone doing the bread and butter of all photography (in terms of making money), does the R deliver? Yes, yes it does. So you want good fast (for DOF) lenses that can produce great looking images. Check. IT DOES THAT VERY VERY well.

Would I get a pro body to meet my GAS and my addiction to tech to go along with these lenses if I pick up these lenses? Well yet... but not immediately, since it is simply nicer to know they are out there, then an absolute need (at least for me). I would rather do what any photographer of ol' would have suggested. Invest in lenses. Since I don't really see how a pro body would give me better looking images than the current R. Do you?

I guess that is the good question. Besides being faster, what value would a "pro" body give you over the R? IMO there would only be one type of pro body that might add value: higher MP. Of course dual slots would be for those wedding and event people, but for the most of us... the R is more than good enough.

 

[Suave]

You realize, of course, that the lenses Canon released thus far, like 85/1.2, 50/1.2 and 28-70, are much more reliant on the pro body than 24-70 and 70-200?

 

[lawny13]

If the rumors sites are on target, and they can be sometimes, the upcoming f2.8 trio of RF zooms will not be cheap. In fact, if the predicted prices are right, well, out of my range.

• Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 93,500 THB – $2799 USD

Amazing how many responses there are admonishing you for suggesting that $2500+ is a lot for a lens.... If I ever move to the R system, I sure hope that Tamron moves some of their popular FE lenses over to Canon so there can be some reasonably priced f2.8 options. I'm sure these lenses will be fantastic, but man that's a lot of money.

Yes, and one accusation that I don't understand inflation. I thought that if it was easier to design lenses for the RF mount, then they might cost less.

Silly me.

But that isn't how it works.

It is about the balance of all the parameters at play. Lets say canon was aiming to make their 50 f1.2 L lens for the RF to be on par to the EF version. Then it would have likely been cheaper. Instead they aimed for no holds barred, sharp corner to corner wide open. So that lens ended up being a monster and considerably more expensive.

The 24-105 is priced the same RF vs EF... even cheaper depends on where you are, but it is better than the EF version.

The 35 is cheaper but kind of on par to the f2 EF version, but doesn't have the weather sealing etc.

The 28-70 f2 is just plain exotic, and just looking at it you can tell it would be more expensive to make.

As you see the price comparisons are all over the place. But that is because of the performance, build quality etc etc choices made that determine prices. The EF 24-70 f2.8 mk2 was released at $2400. The sony GM was priced around $2500 at launch. Neither have IS. The RF version has IS. And canon has been developing most of these L glass to be parafocal as well. Is it a surprise to see it launched at around that same pricing?? Hardly.

And I could say that the "easier" to design is a blanket statement. Not all FLs and FL ranges will gain as much as others in terms of design... especially the longer FL lenses. So though one might expect that 15-35 to have been cheaper, I would have only expected it if it were a 16-35. They sucked up the gain in making it 1mm wider AND giving it IS.

We will likely see benefits when the more classical primes come out, and f4 zooms, but even then. If canon plans on releasing 70MP + sensors then maybe lens designs will need to resolve for them, which might impact cost there as well.

 

[Suave]

People have been screaming to high even that canon is no longer innovative.

That was/is related exclusively to their bodies. No one ever said that Canon does not lead the pack when it comes to glass. Well, except may be the people still hoping for $500 EF 50/1.4 mk2.

IMHO that 28-70f2 becomes a lens that isn't just about vanity. Sharp corner to corner wide open through out the range, parafocal, AND with IBIS for 500 more and a stop faster??? Hmmm...

No offense, but have you seen it? That lens is big and heavy AF. Even on it looks like rottweiler on a bichon frise.

Lower end and entry segment is shrinking.

It's not that it's shrinking, it's that it been (and being) pumped chock full with much cheaper gear that still works and does a pretty decent job. I recently did some cleaning and found a few old cameras I forgot about - a T2i, a few XT's. I put them up for sale and they were all gone in a day. And how do you explain a person who thinks T2i is good enough the need for an FF body?

 

[Suave]

I thought that if it was easier to design lenses for the RF mount, then they might cost less.

Not when you decide to go from 8/7 to 13/9 along the way.

 

[Peak freak]

Tamron makes good lenses but the fact that there is robust demand for premium priced lenses (even f4) tells us that buyers believe in Canon magic.

I'm curious to see what the actual demand for these lenses is.

If they are priced close to what is indicated, then I don't expect that it is a big market - pros and some enthusiasts (I expect people here enthusiastic about these lenses skew real world demand).

I'm curious to see who buys glass at this level without a "pro" body. The R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model. So will current R users pony up the cash for these? Will Canon introduce or announce the development of a higher end body?

Hmmm... the same kind of people who were placing GM lenses on the sony mk2 bodies?
I keep reading that the R is no pro body. And by canon's own standards even the 5D line was not "pro".

So... no dual cards, doesn't affect the images coming out of the camera.

So... no IBIS, but basically all DSLRs didn't have this.

So... no 8fps with live view update, but most people don't need this (though it is nice to have).

For anyone doing the bread and butter of all photography (in terms of making money), does the R deliver? Yes, yes it does. So you want good fast (for DOF) lenses that can produce great looking images. Check. IT DOES THAT VERY VERY well.

Would I get a pro body to meet my GAS and my addiction to tech to go along with these lenses if I pick up these lenses? Well yet... but not immediately, since it is simply nicer to know they are out there, then an absolute need (at least for me). I would rather do what any photographer of ol' would have suggested. Invest in lenses. Since I don't really see how a pro body would give me better looking images than the current R. Do you?

I guess that is the good question. Besides being faster, what value would a "pro" body give you over the R? IMO there would only be one type of pro body that might add value: higher MP. Of course dual slots would be for those wedding and event people, but for the most of us... the R is more than good enough.

I think dmanthree's assessment that 'the R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model' is pretty reasonable. If I were a working pro there are things that might bother me like speed, tracking, dual cards etc. But that is not to say it isn't capable of taking great shots.

The reason this crops up is because the lenses Canon is releasing are likely best in class, maybe even unique, whereas the R is good, but not best. I'm sure you understand this, just like we understand that the R can take a good photo.

 

[Peak freak]

Tamron makes good lenses but the fact that there is robust demand for premium priced lenses (even f4) tells us that buyers believe in Canon magic.

I'm curious to see what the actual demand for these lenses is.

If they are priced close to what is indicated, then I don't expect that it is a big market - pros and some enthusiasts (I expect people here enthusiastic about these lenses skew real world demand).

I'm curious to see who buys glass at this level without a "pro" body. The R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model. So will current R users pony up the cash for these? Will Canon introduce or announce the development of a higher end body?

This is sort of where I am at. I don't have the answers, it is more of a curiosity; is Canon's high end lens strategy the correct one? On paper I think it looks great, but I also wonder if it has an effect of turning buyers elsewhere because of financial realities.

The market is somewhat unusual because many users are committed to Canon because of lens investment. We can't easily swap to another brand like you could a car.

FWIW, my instincts tell me that these rumored prices are too high and they will come in at a more 'market acceptable' ~ $2200.

 

[Bhotoz]

Tamron makes good lenses but the fact that there is robust demand for premium priced lenses (even f4) tells us that buyers believe in Canon magic.

I'm curious to see what the actual demand for these lenses is.

If they are priced close to what is indicated, then I don't expect that it is a big market - pros and some enthusiasts (I expect people here enthusiastic about these lenses skew real world demand).

I'm curious to see who buys glass at this level without a "pro" body. The R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model. So will current R users pony up the cash for these? Will Canon introduce or announce the development of a higher end body?

Hmmm... the same kind of people who were placing GM lenses on the sony mk2 bodies?
I keep reading that the R is no pro body. And by canon's own standards even the 5D line was not "pro".

So... no dual cards, doesn't affect the images coming out of the camera.

So... no IBIS, but basically all DSLRs didn't have this.

So... no 8fps with live view update, but most people don't need this (though it is nice to have).

For anyone doing the bread and butter of all photography (in terms of making money), does the R deliver? Yes, yes it does. So you want good fast (for DOF) lenses that can produce great looking images. Check. IT DOES THAT VERY VERY well.

Would I get a pro body to meet my GAS and my addiction to tech to go along with these lenses if I pick up these lenses? Well yet... but not immediately, since it is simply nicer to know they are out there, then an absolute need (at least for me). I would rather do what any photographer of ol' would have suggested. Invest in lenses. Since I don't really see how a pro body would give me better looking images than the current R. Do you?

I guess that is the good question. Besides being faster, what value would a "pro" body give you over the R? IMO there would only be one type of pro body that might add value: higher MP. Of course dual slots would be for those wedding and event people, but for the most of us... the R is more than good enough.

I think dmanthree's assessment that 'the R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model' is pretty reasonable. If I were a working pro there are things that might bother me like speed, tracking, dual cards etc. But that is not to say it isn't capable of taking great shots.

The reason this crops up is because the lenses Canon is releasing are likely best in class, maybe even unique, whereas the R is good, but not best. I'm sure you understand this, just like we understand that the R can take a good photo.

Depends what the pro is shooting. I understand pros wish for 2 card slots. I'd wish that too although I'm not pro. (My spare sd card would be in good safe in the camera. ) R is not the best camera in the market for sports or wildlife shooters. But I think R is Canon's best "portrait camera" so far. Or would 1DX or 5DSr or 5D4 with EF 50mm f1.2L be better for portraits than R + RF 50mm f1 2L? Based on my experience, R is a huge upgrade to 5D3 with EF-lenses for portraits, too (such as 135L).

 

[dmanthree]

Hmmm... the same kind of people who were placing GM lenses on the sony mk2 bodies?
I keep reading that the R is no pro body. And by canon's own standards even the 5D line was not "pro".

So... no dual cards, doesn't affect the images coming out of the camera.

So... no IBIS, but basically all DSLRs didn't have this.

So... no 8fps with live view update, but most people don't need this (though it is nice to have).

For anyone doing the bread and butter of all photography (in terms of making money), does the R deliver? Yes, yes it does. So you want good fast (for DOF) lenses that can produce great looking images. Check. IT DOES THAT VERY VERY well.

Would I get a pro body to meet my GAS and my addiction to tech to go along with these lenses if I pick up these lenses? Well yet... but not immediately, since it is simply nicer to know they are out there, then an absolute need (at least for me). I would rather do what any photographer of ol' would have suggested. Invest in lenses. Since I don't really see how a pro body would give me better looking images than the current R. Do you?

I guess that is the good question. Besides being faster, what value would a "pro" body give you over the R? IMO there would only be one type of pro body that might add value: higher MP. Of course dual slots would be for those wedding and event people, but for the most of us... the R is more than good enough.

I think dmanthree's assessment that 'the R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model' is pretty reasonable. If I were a working pro there are things that might bother me like speed, tracking, dual cards etc. But that is not to say it isn't capable of taking great shots.

The reason this crops up is because the lenses Canon is releasing are likely best in class, maybe even unique, whereas the R is good, but not best. I'm sure you understand this, just like we understand that the R can take a good photo.

That's correct: I believe the R (I did buy one, after all...) is a fine camera, but not top of the line, and some working pros might want more speed, dual card slots, etc. I guess we'll see, but in the meantime I'll just pressing the shutter button on the cam I have now.

 

[TN Args]

If the rumors sites are on target, and they can be sometimes, the upcoming f2.8 trio of RF zooms will not be cheap. In fact, if the predicted prices are right, well, out of my range.

• Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 93,500 THB – $2799 USD

Amazing how many responses there are admonishing you for suggesting that $2500+ is a lot for a lens.... If I ever move to the R system, I sure hope that Tamron moves some of their popular FE lenses over to Canon so there can be some reasonably priced f2.8 options. I'm sure these lenses will be fantastic, but man that's a lot of money.

Yes, and one accusation that I don't understand inflation. I thought that if it was easier to design lenses for the RF mount, then they might cost less.

Silly me.

The silly bit is that you seem to be assuming that if the RF mount allows for better price, or size/weight, or optics, or performance, that Canon would plump for cheaper.

 

[CanonshooterRF212]

If the rumors sites are on target, and they can be sometimes, the upcoming f2.8 trio of RF zooms will not be cheap. In fact, if the predicted prices are right, well, out of my range.

• Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 93,500 THB – $2799 USD

 

[Jack Jian]

If the rumors sites are on target, and they can be sometimes, the upcoming f2.8 trio of RF zooms will not be cheap. In fact, if the predicted prices are right, well, out of my range.

• Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 93,500 THB – $2799 USD

Now that the new pricing report is out, for the wide and standard, both cost $2299.

Considering the competition, taking the launch price (app., I don't remember exact prices),

- Sony Costs $2200 (March 2016) for the standard and $2199 (3rd Q 2017) for the wide.

- Nikon Costs ~$2297 (2019) for the standard and $1600 appx. (3rd Q 2007) for the wide.
Considering the inflation adjustment for the previous releases, the Canon is in fact cheaper!

On top of that, Canon's EF is still superior optically than all the competition, which will be further improved (assumed) in the RF, which is in fact simply great!

 

[Peak freak]

I think dmanthree's assessment that 'the R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model' is pretty reasonable. If I were a working pro there are things that might bother me like speed, tracking, dual cards etc. But that is not to say it isn't capable of taking great shots.

The reason this crops up is because the lenses Canon is releasing are likely best in class, maybe even unique, whereas the R is good, but not best. I'm sure you understand this, just like we understand that the R can take a good photo.

Depends what the pro is shooting. I understand pros wish for 2 card slots. I'd wish that too although I'm not pro. (My spare sd card would be in good safe in the camera. ) R is not the best camera in the market for sports or wildlife shooters. But I think R is Canon's best "portrait camera" so far. Or would 1DX or 5DSr or 5D4 with EF 50mm f1.2L be better for portraits than R + RF 50mm f1 2L? Based on my experience, R is a huge upgrade to 5D3 with EF-lenses for portraits, too (such as 135L).

OK, the use of 'pro' is perhaps up for (semantic) debate, but the point is, many of Canon's new RF lenses appear to be top level offerings, but the EOS R, while capable, isn't in the same category as a 'top of the line' Canon body (aka 'Pro') like the 1Dx2.

Please don't see this as a slight on the EOS R, but rather a recognition that Canon are doing things a bit different with the release of their new mirrorless technology compared to the competition.

 

[Dave Seeley]

If the rumors sites are on target, and they can be sometimes, the upcoming f2.8 trio of RF zooms will not be cheap. In fact, if the predicted prices are right, well, out of my range.

• Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 93,500 THB – $2799 USD

I thought they were $2300? that's also what the ef24-70Lii was at release, so I'm actually heartened that there has not been a big R price increase for these lenses.

Still, until there is an R replacement for my 5Dsr, I'll stick with my ef glass.

 

[Bhotoz]

I think dmanthree's assessment that 'the R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model' is pretty reasonable. If I were a working pro there are things that might bother me like speed, tracking, dual cards etc. But that is not to say it isn't capable of taking great shots.

The reason this crops up is because the lenses Canon is releasing are likely best in class, maybe even unique, whereas the R is good, but not best. I'm sure you understand this, just like we understand that the R can take a good photo.

Depends what the pro is shooting. I understand pros wish for 2 card slots. I'd wish that too although I'm not pro. (My spare sd card would be in good safe in the camera. ) R is not the best camera in the market for sports or wildlife shooters. But I think R is Canon's best "portrait camera" so far. Or would 1DX or 5DSr or 5D4 with EF 50mm f1.2L be better for portraits than R + RF 50mm f1 2L? Based on my experience, R is a huge upgrade to 5D3 with EF-lenses for portraits, too (such as 135L).

OK, the use of 'pro' is perhaps up for (semantic) debate, but the point is, many of Canon's new RF lenses appear to be top level offerings, but the EOS R, while capable, isn't in the same category as a 'top of the line' Canon body (aka 'Pro') like the 1Dx2.

Please don't see this as a slight on the EOS R, but rather a recognition that Canon are doing things a bit different with the release of their new mirrorless technology compared to the competition.

Yes, many lenses and some bodies are missing from R-line. But of course they cannot bring all the new stuff to the market withing the first or second year. Canon wanted to show their "jewels" (those f1 2 primes and f2 zoom), what kind of lenses they can do for new RF-mount. But do those "jewels" need 1DX2 like body?

If Canon had slapped 2 card slots to R (they should have done that), I think there would be less claim among 5d3/5d4 portrait/event shooters and there would be more R-buyers. Yes, R is not mirrorless 1DX2 or 5DSR, but would have been mirrorless 5D4, although a bit slower (fps, viewfinder).

I know some pro portrait / event shooters who are still using 6d for their work. I've seen their work. Wouldn't pay for them. I think they would do it better using R instead of 6d...

I think Canon should have offered also a cheaper non-L kit zoom with RP. There might have been / might be more RP-buyers then.

 

[lawny13]

Tamron makes good lenses but the fact that there is robust demand for premium priced lenses (even f4) tells us that buyers believe in Canon magic.

I'm curious to see what the actual demand for these lenses is.

If they are priced close to what is indicated, then I don't expect that it is a big market - pros and some enthusiasts (I expect people here enthusiastic about these lenses skew real world demand).

I'm curious to see who buys glass at this level without a "pro" body. The R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model. So will current R users pony up the cash for these? Will Canon introduce or announce the development of a higher end body?

Hmmm... the same kind of people who were placing GM lenses on the sony mk2 bodies?
I keep reading that the R is no pro body. And by canon's own standards even the 5D line was not "pro".

So... no dual cards, doesn't affect the images coming out of the camera.

So... no IBIS, but basically all DSLRs didn't have this.

So... no 8fps with live view update, but most people don't need this (though it is nice to have).

For anyone doing the bread and butter of all photography (in terms of making money), does the R deliver? Yes, yes it does. So you want good fast (for DOF) lenses that can produce great looking images. Check. IT DOES THAT VERY VERY well.

Would I get a pro body to meet my GAS and my addiction to tech to go along with these lenses if I pick up these lenses? Well yet... but not immediately, since it is simply nicer to know they are out there, then an absolute need (at least for me). I would rather do what any photographer of ol' would have suggested. Invest in lenses. Since I don't really see how a pro body would give me better looking images than the current R. Do you?

I guess that is the good question. Besides being faster, what value would a "pro" body give you over the R? IMO there would only be one type of pro body that might add value: higher MP. Of course dual slots would be for those wedding and event people, but for the most of us... the R is more than good enough.

I think dmanthree's assessment that 'the R is a fine camera, but clearly not a top of the line pro model' is pretty reasonable. If I were a working pro there are things that might bother me like speed, tracking, dual cards etc. But that is not to say it isn't capable of taking great shots.

The reason this crops up is because the lenses Canon is releasing are likely best in class, maybe even unique, whereas the R is good, but not best. I'm sure you understand this, just like we understand that the R can take a good photo.

I definitely understand this. All I am saying is that people are clamoring that this is not a "pro" camera. For years people have argued that the mk2 bodies from sony are "pro" tools, yet they were dog slow. The R is a notch above them. When I said speed, I meant tracking speed and fps. The camera itself is pretty snappy.

Not to mention canon has for the past decade or so never produced a best in class body. We complain a lot about that too. But in general they were still more than enough as a system, and so is the R.

What I was saying is that... unless you are an event/wedding, sports photographer the R can easily be used professionally. Last but not least, you buy into a SYSTEM, not a camera body. Right now we have the R. People can point out all they want that it isn't the camera they want but when what??? You buy into sony and then switch to canon? We all know the switching came is expensive. Canon promised more pro grade bodies to come. It is said that the development action oriented camera has been accelerated, and it is to come in 2020. So... patience?

1. Buy the R or RP to use those great RF lenses and then sell it and get the more pro bodies once they are here.

2. Or don't trust canon (they have disappointed before I admit) and wait and see.

3. And if you really are a "pro", then you shouldn't be considering 1 or 2 at all. You need the tool that exists today that meets your needs, in which case you get something else so you can do your job well.

3 choices... whining about the lack of "pro" bodies generally means you probably aren't a pro in the first place, if you ask me. Cause those guys (if they want canon) would be invested in a DSLR system right now so they can do their work.

Just my 2c.

 

[jwilliams]

If the rumors sites are on target, and they can be sometimes, the upcoming f2.8 trio of RF zooms will not be cheap. In fact, if the predicted prices are right, well, out of my range.

• Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM 82,600 THB – $2499 USD
• Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 93,500 THB – $2799 USD

Add a body and you're at $10Ki for a basic 3 zooms lens kit.

Canon has lost me I think after 30+ years. Cameras are behind everyone else. Lenses are technically great, but large/heavy and with prices that bring tears to your eyes.

I guess they want me to shoot an M system, since R is so expensive. No way that is gonna happen. Seems they forgot there are serious amateurs that can spend more than the typical soccer mom on a camera, but can't drop $10K to get a camera and set of lenses.

--
Jonathan