Does the new R5 change your roadmap?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions
MyM3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,169
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1
3

Rock and Rollei wrote:

rick9814911 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The new RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is the same length as the EF-M 18-150mm and only marginally fatter and heavier. The new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 lens sounds slow, but if this was a crop lens, it would be equivalent to a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5. Who here wouldn't love a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 lens for the M system?

Now, consider that the EOS RP is only marginally bigger and heavier than the M50. Most of the size difference comes from the larger grip on the RP Add this new $400 zoom lens to the RP and you have a pretty compact package with potential image quality better than any zoom lens in the M system. In a kit, this lens will be even cheaper. This would likely put a kit with the RP and new 24-105mm within $100 of the M6 II, 15-45mm and EVF.

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market. Instead of going head to head with crop sensor cameras like the Sony A6400 or Fuji X-T30, Canon is going to push small, stripped down full frame cameras and lenses to those price points. 7D users will likely be out of luck too. The new R5 appears to be the spiritual successor to the 5D series. When shooting in a crop mode, the R5 could produce images with at least 15MP. The only real advantage a 7D would have over the R5 is price. The R5 could replace both the 5D and 7D series. The R6 could replace both the 6D and 90D series. The RP, or future smaller version, could replace the 8Ti Rebel and M5 series. The only camera I don't see getting a direct full frame replacement is the M100/M200, but how long will those models last with the progress of smartphones?

I disagree with most of these points. The EF-M 18-150 weighs 300 grams, the RF 24-105 weighs 700 grams. That is not even close to marginal. I agree that when you factor in the 1.6x crop on the aperture, the 24-105 is a far better lens for low light and getting stronger bokeh. But in terms of weight and size, the difference is massive, regardless of body size. It is not possible to build a full frame kit and have the weight be even close to APS-C.

He's talking about the newly-announced RF 24-105 IS STM - that's 395g, so it certainly is marginal.

I also feel smartphones are very far from matching APS-C. Only time will tell, maybe you're right. But I can't get pictures anywhere close quality wise from a smartphone when compared with a crop sensor camera. If you want professional looking images, there are very few situations where a smartphone is going to come close.

The RF 24-105 STM should be compared to to the EF-M 15-45 (24-72mm ff equiv). Much closer (equiv) focal lengths. (The smallest kit lenses for each system.) The RF lens is 3x as heavy and MUCH bigger.

The EF-M 18-150mm (29-240mm equiv) should be compared to the RF 24-240mm.

 MyM3's gear list:MyM3's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II
MyM3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,169
Re: Does the new R5 change your roadmap?
3

Not at all. 🤣

If anything, I will go smaller, not larger from now. It still annoys me a little that the M6II is larger and heavier than the original M6. Not by much, but it is a step in the wrong direction (IMO).

 MyM3's gear list:MyM3's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,076
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1

MyM3 wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

rick9814911 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The new RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is the same length as the EF-M 18-150mm and only marginally fatter and heavier. The new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 lens sounds slow, but if this was a crop lens, it would be equivalent to a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5. Who here wouldn't love a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 lens for the M system?

Now, consider that the EOS RP is only marginally bigger and heavier than the M50. Most of the size difference comes from the larger grip on the RP Add this new $400 zoom lens to the RP and you have a pretty compact package with potential image quality better than any zoom lens in the M system. In a kit, this lens will be even cheaper. This would likely put a kit with the RP and new 24-105mm within $100 of the M6 II, 15-45mm and EVF.

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market. Instead of going head to head with crop sensor cameras like the Sony A6400 or Fuji X-T30, Canon is going to push small, stripped down full frame cameras and lenses to those price points. 7D users will likely be out of luck too. The new R5 appears to be the spiritual successor to the 5D series. When shooting in a crop mode, the R5 could produce images with at least 15MP. The only real advantage a 7D would have over the R5 is price. The R5 could replace both the 5D and 7D series. The R6 could replace both the 6D and 90D series. The RP, or future smaller version, could replace the 8Ti Rebel and M5 series. The only camera I don't see getting a direct full frame replacement is the M100/M200, but how long will those models last with the progress of smartphones?

I disagree with most of these points. The EF-M 18-150 weighs 300 grams, the RF 24-105 weighs 700 grams. That is not even close to marginal. I agree that when you factor in the 1.6x crop on the aperture, the 24-105 is a far better lens for low light and getting stronger bokeh. But in terms of weight and size, the difference is massive, regardless of body size. It is not possible to build a full frame kit and have the weight be even close to APS-C.

He's talking about the newly-announced RF 24-105 IS STM - that's 395g, so it certainly is marginal.

I also feel smartphones are very far from matching APS-C. Only time will tell, maybe you're right. But I can't get pictures anywhere close quality wise from a smartphone when compared with a crop sensor camera. If you want professional looking images, there are very few situations where a smartphone is going to come close.

The RF 24-105 STM should be compared to to the EF-M 15-45 (24-72mm ff equiv).

That 15-45mm has a full frame aperture equivalence of f/5.6-10.  That puts is squarely into smartphone territory.  Especially when you take into account all of the optical problems with the 15-45mm.

Much closer (equiv) focal lengths. (The smallest kit lenses for each system.) The RF lens is 3x as heavy and MUCH bigger.

The EF-M 18-150mm (29-240mm equiv) should be compared to the RF 24-240mm.

The RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3 is equivalent to a crop sensor 15-150mm f/2.5-4.0.  Focal lengths might be similar to the EF-M lens, but apertures are not even close.

nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,076
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1

rick9814911 wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

rick9814911 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The new RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is the same length as the EF-M 18-150mm and only marginally fatter and heavier. The new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 lens sounds slow, but if this was a crop lens, it would be equivalent to a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5. Who here wouldn't love a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 lens for the M system?

Now, consider that the EOS RP is only marginally bigger and heavier than the M50. Most of the size difference comes from the larger grip on the RP Add this new $400 zoom lens to the RP and you have a pretty compact package with potential image quality better than any zoom lens in the M system. In a kit, this lens will be even cheaper. This would likely put a kit with the RP and new 24-105mm within $100 of the M6 II, 15-45mm and EVF.

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market. Instead of going head to head with crop sensor cameras like the Sony A6400 or Fuji X-T30, Canon is going to push small, stripped down full frame cameras and lenses to those price points. 7D users will likely be out of luck too. The new R5 appears to be the spiritual successor to the 5D series. When shooting in a crop mode, the R5 could produce images with at least 15MP. The only real advantage a 7D would have over the R5 is price. The R5 could replace both the 5D and 7D series. The R6 could replace both the 6D and 90D series. The RP, or future smaller version, could replace the 8Ti Rebel and M5 series. The only camera I don't see getting a direct full frame replacement is the M100/M200, but how long will those models last with the progress of smartphones?

I disagree with most of these points. The EF-M 18-150 weighs 300 grams, the RF 24-105 weighs 700 grams. That is not even close to marginal. I agree that when you factor in the 1.6x crop on the aperture, the 24-105 is a far better lens for low light and getting stronger bokeh. But in terms of weight and size, the difference is massive, regardless of body size. It is not possible to build a full frame kit and have the weight be even close to APS-C.

He's talking about the newly-announced RF 24-105 IS STM - that's 395g, so it certainly is marginal.

I also feel smartphones are very far from matching APS-C. Only time will tell, maybe you're right. But I can't get pictures anywhere close quality wise from a smartphone when compared with a crop sensor camera. If you want professional looking images, there are very few situations where a smartphone is going to come close.

Thank you for clarifying! Overall the weight differences across the whole system is still significent. But yes that's impressivley light for a full frame zoom!

The EOS M5 weighs 427 grams.  The EOS RP that takes the same battery and SD card weighs 485 grams.  Once Canon starts making some pancake primes for the RF mount, I think we will get to the point where the overall size differences for the two systems will be insignificant for the vast majority of users.  There is a big difference between "smallest possible" and "small enough".

MyM3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,169
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1
4

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

rick9814911 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The new RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is the same length as the EF-M 18-150mm and only marginally fatter and heavier. The new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 lens sounds slow, but if this was a crop lens, it would be equivalent to a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5. Who here wouldn't love a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 lens for the M system?

Now, consider that the EOS RP is only marginally bigger and heavier than the M50. Most of the size difference comes from the larger grip on the RP Add this new $400 zoom lens to the RP and you have a pretty compact package with potential image quality better than any zoom lens in the M system. In a kit, this lens will be even cheaper. This would likely put a kit with the RP and new 24-105mm within $100 of the M6 II, 15-45mm and EVF.

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market. Instead of going head to head with crop sensor cameras like the Sony A6400 or Fuji X-T30, Canon is going to push small, stripped down full frame cameras and lenses to those price points. 7D users will likely be out of luck too. The new R5 appears to be the spiritual successor to the 5D series. When shooting in a crop mode, the R5 could produce images with at least 15MP. The only real advantage a 7D would have over the R5 is price. The R5 could replace both the 5D and 7D series. The R6 could replace both the 6D and 90D series. The RP, or future smaller version, could replace the 8Ti Rebel and M5 series. The only camera I don't see getting a direct full frame replacement is the M100/M200, but how long will those models last with the progress of smartphones?

I disagree with most of these points. The EF-M 18-150 weighs 300 grams, the RF 24-105 weighs 700 grams. That is not even close to marginal. I agree that when you factor in the 1.6x crop on the aperture, the 24-105 is a far better lens for low light and getting stronger bokeh. But in terms of weight and size, the difference is massive, regardless of body size. It is not possible to build a full frame kit and have the weight be even close to APS-C.

He's talking about the newly-announced RF 24-105 IS STM - that's 395g, so it certainly is marginal.

I also feel smartphones are very far from matching APS-C. Only time will tell, maybe you're right. But I can't get pictures anywhere close quality wise from a smartphone when compared with a crop sensor camera. If you want professional looking images, there are very few situations where a smartphone is going to come close.

The RF 24-105 STM should be compared to to the EF-M 15-45 (24-72mm ff equiv).

That 15-45mm has a full frame aperture equivalence of f/5.6-10.

That aperture equivalence is only for DOF. Not for exposure.

That puts is squarely into smartphone territory. Especially when you take into account all of the optical problems with the 15-45mm.

My 3 copies have no problems. And we don’t know what problems the RF lens will have.

Much closer (equiv) focal lengths. (The smallest kit lenses for each system.) The RF lens is 3x as heavy and MUCH bigger.

The EF-M 18-150mm (29-240mm equiv) should be compared to the RF 24-240mm.

The RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3 is equivalent to a crop sensor 15-150mm f/2.5-4.0. Focal lengths might be similar to the EF-M lens, but apertures are not even close.

Again only for DOF. f/6.3 is f/6.3 for both systems.

 MyM3's gear list:MyM3's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,076
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

rick9814911 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The new RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is the same length as the EF-M 18-150mm and only marginally fatter and heavier. The new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 lens sounds slow, but if this was a crop lens, it would be equivalent to a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5. Who here wouldn't love a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 lens for the M system?

Now, consider that the EOS RP is only marginally bigger and heavier than the M50. Most of the size difference comes from the larger grip on the RP Add this new $400 zoom lens to the RP and you have a pretty compact package with potential image quality better than any zoom lens in the M system. In a kit, this lens will be even cheaper. This would likely put a kit with the RP and new 24-105mm within $100 of the M6 II, 15-45mm and EVF.

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market. Instead of going head to head with crop sensor cameras like the Sony A6400 or Fuji X-T30, Canon is going to push small, stripped down full frame cameras and lenses to those price points. 7D users will likely be out of luck too. The new R5 appears to be the spiritual successor to the 5D series. When shooting in a crop mode, the R5 could produce images with at least 15MP. The only real advantage a 7D would have over the R5 is price. The R5 could replace both the 5D and 7D series. The R6 could replace both the 6D and 90D series. The RP, or future smaller version, could replace the 8Ti Rebel and M5 series. The only camera I don't see getting a direct full frame replacement is the M100/M200, but how long will those models last with the progress of smartphones?

I disagree with most of these points. The EF-M 18-150 weighs 300 grams, the RF 24-105 weighs 700 grams. That is not even close to marginal. I agree that when you factor in the 1.6x crop on the aperture, the 24-105 is a far better lens for low light and getting stronger bokeh. But in terms of weight and size, the difference is massive, regardless of body size. It is not possible to build a full frame kit and have the weight be even close to APS-C.

He's talking about the newly-announced RF 24-105 IS STM - that's 395g, so it certainly is marginal.

I also feel smartphones are very far from matching APS-C. Only time will tell, maybe you're right. But I can't get pictures anywhere close quality wise from a smartphone when compared with a crop sensor camera. If you want professional looking images, there are very few situations where a smartphone is going to come close.

The RF 24-105 STM should be compared to to the EF-M 15-45 (24-72mm ff equiv).

That 15-45mm has a full frame aperture equivalence of f/5.6-10.

That aperture equivalence is only for DOF. Not for exposure.

You're right.  The smartphone can use lower ISO's and/or faster shutter speed due to the much brighter lenses.

That puts is squarely into smartphone territory. Especially when you take into account all of the optical problems with the 15-45mm.

My 3 copies have no problems.

You're in the minority, or just oblivious to the problems.

And we don’t know what problems the RF lens will have.

I would be shocked if Canon somehow produced a lens with even worse quality control than the 15-45mm.  The simple fact that it is not a collapsible design should make quality control better.

Much closer (equiv) focal lengths. (The smallest kit lenses for each system.) The RF lens is 3x as heavy and MUCH bigger.

The EF-M 18-150mm (29-240mm equiv) should be compared to the RF 24-240mm.

The RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3 is equivalent to a crop sensor 15-150mm f/2.5-4.0. Focal lengths might be similar to the EF-M lens, but apertures are not even close.

Again only for DOF. f/6.3 is f/6.3 for both systems.

No, it isn't.  Calculated exposure will be the same, but the final image will not.  If all exposure settings are identical, the full frame image will have shallower depth of field AND lower noise levels AND more dynamic range.

MyM3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,169
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1
6

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

rick9814911 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The new RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is the same length as the EF-M 18-150mm and only marginally fatter and heavier. The new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 lens sounds slow, but if this was a crop lens, it would be equivalent to a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5. Who here wouldn't love a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 lens for the M system?

Now, consider that the EOS RP is only marginally bigger and heavier than the M50. Most of the size difference comes from the larger grip on the RP Add this new $400 zoom lens to the RP and you have a pretty compact package with potential image quality better than any zoom lens in the M system. In a kit, this lens will be even cheaper. This would likely put a kit with the RP and new 24-105mm within $100 of the M6 II, 15-45mm and EVF.

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market. Instead of going head to head with crop sensor cameras like the Sony A6400 or Fuji X-T30, Canon is going to push small, stripped down full frame cameras and lenses to those price points. 7D users will likely be out of luck too. The new R5 appears to be the spiritual successor to the 5D series. When shooting in a crop mode, the R5 could produce images with at least 15MP. The only real advantage a 7D would have over the R5 is price. The R5 could replace both the 5D and 7D series. The R6 could replace both the 6D and 90D series. The RP, or future smaller version, could replace the 8Ti Rebel and M5 series. The only camera I don't see getting a direct full frame replacement is the M100/M200, but how long will those models last with the progress of smartphones?

I disagree with most of these points. The EF-M 18-150 weighs 300 grams, the RF 24-105 weighs 700 grams. That is not even close to marginal. I agree that when you factor in the 1.6x crop on the aperture, the 24-105 is a far better lens for low light and getting stronger bokeh. But in terms of weight and size, the difference is massive, regardless of body size. It is not possible to build a full frame kit and have the weight be even close to APS-C.

He's talking about the newly-announced RF 24-105 IS STM - that's 395g, so it certainly is marginal.

I also feel smartphones are very far from matching APS-C. Only time will tell, maybe you're right. But I can't get pictures anywhere close quality wise from a smartphone when compared with a crop sensor camera. If you want professional looking images, there are very few situations where a smartphone is going to come close.

The RF 24-105 STM should be compared to to the EF-M 15-45 (24-72mm ff equiv).

That 15-45mm has a full frame aperture equivalence of f/5.6-10.

That aperture equivalence is only for DOF. Not for exposure.

You're right. The smartphone can use lower ISO's and/or faster shutter speed due to the much brighter lenses.

So you think it is fine to compare the new RF lens to the 18-150, but not to the 15-45 ? They have almost the same aperture range and the 18-150 has more than double the reach of the RF lens ???

I don’t know much about the technical aspects of the phone cameras. But I have never seen any phone that can take better photos (viewed on a large screen) than my 15-45 on my M cameras.

That puts is squarely into smartphone territory. Especially when you take into account all of the optical problems with the 15-45mm.

My 3 copies have no problems.

You're in the minority, or just oblivious to the problems.

Far from it. Post some evidence with numbers of lenses with problems versus how many lenses sold worldwide. Then we can talk.

And we don’t know what problems the RF lens will have.

I would be shocked if Canon somehow produced a lens with even worse quality control than the 15-45mm. The simple fact that it is not a collapsible design should make quality control better.

Still no evidence for your claims.

but what has this to do with the size/weight comparisons we are discussing??

Much closer (equiv) focal lengths. (The smallest kit lenses for each system.) The RF lens is 3x as heavy and MUCH bigger.

The EF-M 18-150mm (29-240mm equiv) should be compared to the RF 24-240mm.

The RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3 is equivalent to a crop sensor 15-150mm f/2.5-4.0. Focal lengths might be similar to the EF-M lens, but apertures are not even close.

Again only for DOF. f/6.3 is f/6.3 for both systems.

No, it isn't. Calculated exposure will be the same, but the final image will not. If all exposure settings are identical, the full frame image will have shallower depth of field

Not everyone wants shallow dof.

AND lower noise levels AND more dynamic range.

No. That is properties of the sensor, NOT the lens.

 MyM3's gear list:MyM3's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 14,912
Re: Does the new R5 change your roadmap?

R2D2 wrote:

The specs on the new R5 look like a it's going to be a real paradigm shifter...

Canon R5 announcement at DPReview

R5 details at B&H

Do you think Canon is moving in a new direction (esp with the inclusion of IBIS)? Will any of these goodies trickle down to the M-System? Will there BE a future M-System? What will your next upgrades be...

I love my M6ii. Nothing else out there is as small and light, with such great bang for the buck. Will there be an M6iii?

R2

the f7.1 lenses they are releasing suggest crop cameras are done

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS RP +12 more
PaddyC Regular Member • Posts: 371
Re: Does the new R5 change your roadmap?
3

The R system could, conceivably at some point, tempt me. But Canon is going to have to get busy making more affordable, smaller lenses. Things like the 40 2.8 STM. Perhaps not as slow but I wouldn't mind seeing really well corrected F2s. I don't think that specific wish is going to happen but finding the right balance of performance, size, weight and price is key. Until then I don't see compelling reasons to go back to full frame.

 PaddyC's gear list:PaddyC's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS M50 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +1 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,076
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

rick9814911 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The new RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is the same length as the EF-M 18-150mm and only marginally fatter and heavier. The new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 lens sounds slow, but if this was a crop lens, it would be equivalent to a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5. Who here wouldn't love a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 lens for the M system?

Now, consider that the EOS RP is only marginally bigger and heavier than the M50. Most of the size difference comes from the larger grip on the RP Add this new $400 zoom lens to the RP and you have a pretty compact package with potential image quality better than any zoom lens in the M system. In a kit, this lens will be even cheaper. This would likely put a kit with the RP and new 24-105mm within $100 of the M6 II, 15-45mm and EVF.

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market. Instead of going head to head with crop sensor cameras like the Sony A6400 or Fuji X-T30, Canon is going to push small, stripped down full frame cameras and lenses to those price points. 7D users will likely be out of luck too. The new R5 appears to be the spiritual successor to the 5D series. When shooting in a crop mode, the R5 could produce images with at least 15MP. The only real advantage a 7D would have over the R5 is price. The R5 could replace both the 5D and 7D series. The R6 could replace both the 6D and 90D series. The RP, or future smaller version, could replace the 8Ti Rebel and M5 series. The only camera I don't see getting a direct full frame replacement is the M100/M200, but how long will those models last with the progress of smartphones?

I disagree with most of these points. The EF-M 18-150 weighs 300 grams, the RF 24-105 weighs 700 grams. That is not even close to marginal. I agree that when you factor in the 1.6x crop on the aperture, the 24-105 is a far better lens for low light and getting stronger bokeh. But in terms of weight and size, the difference is massive, regardless of body size. It is not possible to build a full frame kit and have the weight be even close to APS-C.

He's talking about the newly-announced RF 24-105 IS STM - that's 395g, so it certainly is marginal.

I also feel smartphones are very far from matching APS-C. Only time will tell, maybe you're right. But I can't get pictures anywhere close quality wise from a smartphone when compared with a crop sensor camera. If you want professional looking images, there are very few situations where a smartphone is going to come close.

The RF 24-105 STM should be compared to to the EF-M 15-45 (24-72mm ff equiv).

That 15-45mm has a full frame aperture equivalence of f/5.6-10.

That aperture equivalence is only for DOF. Not for exposure.

You're right. The smartphone can use lower ISO's and/or faster shutter speed due to the much brighter lenses.

So you think it is fine to compare the new RF lens to the 18-150, but not to the 15-45 ?

I compared the RF lens to the 18-150mm because most people are familiar with the size of the 18-150mm.  The common complaint of the RF system is the lenses are too big and too expensive.  This new RF lens is neither of those things.

They have almost the same aperture range and the 18-150 has more than double the reach of the RF lens ???

I don’t know much about the technical aspects of the phone cameras. But I have never seen any phone that can take better photos (viewed on a large screen) than my 15-45 on my M cameras.

Just because you have personally not witnessed something does not mean it does not exist.

That puts is squarely into smartphone territory. Especially when you take into account all of the optical problems with the 15-45mm.

My 3 copies have no problems.

You're in the minority, or just oblivious to the problems.

Far from it. Post some evidence with numbers of lenses with problems versus how many lenses sold worldwide. Then we can talk.

Post some samples from you supposedly perfect lenses and we can talk.

And we don’t know what problems the RF lens will have.

I would be shocked if Canon somehow produced a lens with even worse quality control than the 15-45mm. The simple fact that it is not a collapsible design should make quality control better.

Still no evidence for your claims.

but what has this to do with the size/weight comparisons we are discussing??

I don't know.  Your the one who brought it up.

Much closer (equiv) focal lengths. (The smallest kit lenses for each system.) The RF lens is 3x as heavy and MUCH bigger.

The EF-M 18-150mm (29-240mm equiv) should be compared to the RF 24-240mm.

The RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3 is equivalent to a crop sensor 15-150mm f/2.5-4.0. Focal lengths might be similar to the EF-M lens, but apertures are not even close.

Again only for DOF. f/6.3 is f/6.3 for both systems.

No, it isn't. Calculated exposure will be the same, but the final image will not. If all exposure settings are identical, the full frame image will have shallower depth of field

Not everyone wants shallow dof.

I am pretty sure most Canon lenses have adjustable apertures.

AND lower noise levels AND more dynamic range.

No. That is properties of the sensor, NOT the lens.

You can't take a photo with just a camera or just a lens.

justmeMN Veteran Member • Posts: 8,928
Re: Does the new R5 change your roadmap?
3

MAC wrote:

the f7.1 lenses they are releasing suggest crop cameras are done

Entry-level APS-C: M50 (with lens), $599.99

Entry-level FF: RP (body only), $999.00

(Current prices on Canon USA website.)

nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,076
Re: Does the new R5 change your roadmap?

justmeMN wrote:

MAC wrote:

the f7.1 lenses they are releasing suggest crop cameras are done

Entry-level APS-C: M50 (with lens), $599.99

Entry-level FF: RP (body only), $999.00

(Current prices on Canon USA website.)

There have been a lot of rumors that an even cheaper RF mount body is in the works.  This new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 will likely only be $150 to $200 in a kit.  Put those two together and you will have a full frame kit with a street price easily under $1000.

justmeMN Veteran Member • Posts: 8,928
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1
10

nnowak wrote:

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market.

If that was Canon's plan, they wouldn't have bothered making a 32MP APS-C sensor.

MyM3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,169
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1
5

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

rick9814911 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The new RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is the same length as the EF-M 18-150mm and only marginally fatter and heavier. The new 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 lens sounds slow, but if this was a crop lens, it would be equivalent to a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5. Who here wouldn't love a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 lens for the M system?

Now, consider that the EOS RP is only marginally bigger and heavier than the M50. Most of the size difference comes from the larger grip on the RP Add this new $400 zoom lens to the RP and you have a pretty compact package with potential image quality better than any zoom lens in the M system. In a kit, this lens will be even cheaper. This would likely put a kit with the RP and new 24-105mm within $100 of the M6 II, 15-45mm and EVF.

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market. Instead of going head to head with crop sensor cameras like the Sony A6400 or Fuji X-T30, Canon is going to push small, stripped down full frame cameras and lenses to those price points. 7D users will likely be out of luck too. The new R5 appears to be the spiritual successor to the 5D series. When shooting in a crop mode, the R5 could produce images with at least 15MP. The only real advantage a 7D would have over the R5 is price. The R5 could replace both the 5D and 7D series. The R6 could replace both the 6D and 90D series. The RP, or future smaller version, could replace the 8Ti Rebel and M5 series. The only camera I don't see getting a direct full frame replacement is the M100/M200, but how long will those models last with the progress of smartphones?

I disagree with most of these points. The EF-M 18-150 weighs 300 grams, the RF 24-105 weighs 700 grams. That is not even close to marginal. I agree that when you factor in the 1.6x crop on the aperture, the 24-105 is a far better lens for low light and getting stronger bokeh. But in terms of weight and size, the difference is massive, regardless of body size. It is not possible to build a full frame kit and have the weight be even close to APS-C.

He's talking about the newly-announced RF 24-105 IS STM - that's 395g, so it certainly is marginal.

I also feel smartphones are very far from matching APS-C. Only time will tell, maybe you're right. But I can't get pictures anywhere close quality wise from a smartphone when compared with a crop sensor camera. If you want professional looking images, there are very few situations where a smartphone is going to come close.

The RF 24-105 STM should be compared to to the EF-M 15-45 (24-72mm ff equiv).

That 15-45mm has a full frame aperture equivalence of f/5.6-10.

That aperture equivalence is only for DOF. Not for exposure.

You're right. The smartphone can use lower ISO's and/or faster shutter speed due to the much brighter lenses.

So you think it is fine to compare the new RF lens to the 18-150, but not to the 15-45 ?

I compared the RF lens to the 18-150mm because most people are familiar with the size of the 18-150mm.

I think most people are even more familiar with the size of the 15-45. 😉

The common complaint of the RF system is the lenses are too big and too expensive. This new RF lens is neither of those things.

Well. I don’t think everyone would agree with you on that. The RF is about 33% heavier than the heaviest Canon EF-M lens. The new RF lens is the smallest kit lens for the R system but still 3 times heavier than the smallest kit lens for the M system. It is ca. as long as the Sigma 16mm but even fatter. Add that to the size and weight of the camera and a couple of other RF lenses, ... not very compact in my book.

They have almost the same aperture range and the 18-150 has more than double the reach of the RF lens ???

I think it is better to compare the smallest kitlenses from each system to get a feeling about the size difference.

I don’t know much about the technical aspects of the phone cameras. But I have never seen any phone that can take better photos (viewed on a large screen) than my 15-45 on my M cameras.

Just because you have personally not witnessed something does not mean it does not exist.

That puts is squarely into smartphone territory. Especially when you take into account all of the optical problems with the 15-45mm.

My 3 copies have no problems.

You're in the minority, or just oblivious to the problems.

Far from it. Post some evidence with numbers of lenses with problems versus how many lenses sold worldwide. Then we can talk.

Post some samples from you supposedly perfect lenses and we can talk.

“No problems” is not the same as perfect, But I will post some after you have posted the evidence. You was the one who made the claim. You go first.😉

And we don’t know what problems the RF lens will have.

I would be shocked if Canon somehow produced a lens with even worse quality control than the 15-45mm. The simple fact that it is not a collapsible design should make quality control better.

Still no evidence for your claims.

but what has this to do with the size/weight comparisons we are discussing??

I don't know. Your the one who brought it up.

No you were. Can’t you remember ? Look at your very first sentence at the top of this post.

Much closer (equiv) focal lengths. (The smallest kit lenses for each system.) The RF lens is 3x as heavy and MUCH bigger.

The EF-M 18-150mm (29-240mm equiv) should be compared to the RF 24-240mm.

The RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3 is equivalent to a crop sensor 15-150mm f/2.5-4.0. Focal lengths might be similar to the EF-M lens, but apertures are not even close.

Again only for DOF. f/6.3 is f/6.3 for both systems.

No, it isn't. Calculated exposure will be the same, but the final image will not. If all exposure settings are identical, the full frame image will have shallower depth of field

Not everyone wants shallow dof.

I am pretty sure most Canon lenses have adjustable apertures.

Right.

AND lower noise levels AND more dynamic range.

No. That is properties of the sensor, NOT the lens.

You can't take a photo with just a camera or just a lens.

But we can compare compactness and weight. 😉 ( And sensors does not have equivalent apertures.)

 MyM3's gear list:MyM3's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II
Fury13 New Member • Posts: 24
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1

This has thrown a spanner in the works for my upgrade plans.

The main improvements i'd like over my current M6:

  • Improved low light performance (auto focus) as i take a lot of photography at night
  • IBIS for my increasingly shaky hands and non-IS prime EF-M lenses

I was set on purchasing the M6 mk2 during the next bout of sales here as this would give an improvement on the first point... but now the R5 is announced with IBIS, i'm wondering if i should wait until the EOS M line gets IBIS.

While i'm sure the R6 would satisfy my requirements, it is going to be far too costly and less portable than the M6.

My last trip i only took the Sigma 16/1.4 and 55-200, loved the lightness of the kit that covered nearly all bases. In the RF range i guess i would look at the 35/1.8 but there's not much in the way of small/lite zooms.

 Fury13's gear list:Fury13's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 15-45mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM +4 more
Robert Sheldon Senior Member • Posts: 2,223
Re: Does the new R5 change your roadmap?
2

As soon as Canon has a small/light Wide Angle RF lens to pair with the new 24-105 I will go to FF for my travel camera.

-- hide signature --

Bob Sheldon
Photo Gallery at
www.bobsheldon.com

nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,076
Re: Forget the R5, look at the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1
1

justmeMN wrote:

nnowak wrote:

I would not be so worried about the specific health of the M system. I would be worried about the future of all crop sensors cameras from Canon. I am starting to think that Canon has a long term plan to leverage their internal sensor production to push full frame cameras to all levels of the market.

If that was Canon's plan, they wouldn't have bothered making a 32MP APS-C sensor.

Canon does not yet have all of the pieces in place for the future I am predicting.  At a minimum they are missing the rumored full frame body below the RP as well as a couple of pancake primes.  Canon won't put a hard stop on the construction of crop sensor bodies, but the marketplace will quickly ignore them once some of the smaller and cheaper full frame options appear.  The RP and 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 is basically the same price as the M6 II and 18-150mm kit.  Give the RP the M6 treatment by lopping off the EVF and shrinking the grip and you could easily be under $1000 for the full frame kit.

sosh
sosh Regular Member • Posts: 159
Re: Does the new R5 change your roadmap?

In a long term sure. Great sign about evolving R system, so someday in the future I’ll be there. It will depends on how long my M6 will be kicking, sure I will not buy another new APS-C except maybe used with damn low price tag to pass it to my daughters). Interesting times!

 sosh's gear list:sosh's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM +4 more
PhotoPhart
PhotoPhart Senior Member • Posts: 2,253
What the R5 does...
1

is make me hopeful that it and its successors will be so darn good that Canon will make even greater efforts to keep improving the M series to!!

Johnrr44 Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: Does the new R5 change your roadmap?

Change my roadmap?  I'm parked in a roadside rest area.  Got a 5D mk4 for wildlife and larger than 11X14 prints of landscape.  Got a M5 with the 22mm, 15-45mm  and the 18-150mm for (non-photocentric) travel and casual family photos,  (My Samsung S10 is for when you gotta' "love the one you're with."  Samsung S20 isn't going to make me sell my M5.)

I will wait up to 2021 for a M5 mk2 with IBIS and incremental IQ improvements over the M6 mk2,  If a M5 mk2  doesn't come out by this time next year, I'll probably get a M6 mk2, but no more lenses.  If a M5 mk2 with IBIS does emerge, and Canon comes thru with a 15-75mm IS with very good IQ, I'll get those and a MF 55-200.  I'm reluctant to get more primes without IS, because I can't hold them steady any more, and I don't carry a tripod for casual photography.  But, IBIS would make me consider some primes as well.

What about that R5?  Getting 2 new cameras in one year (2021) would give me pause, and is beyond my limit on spending money on "toys."  Whether or not the R5 would improve my landscape and wildlife photographs enough to make it worth it remains to be seen.  But, leaked specs are very interesting.  If I bite, would I replace my ef-L lenses?  I'd probably get a RF24-70 L or 24-105 L and a RF100-400 L (to access the IBIS).  The 100-500 sounds interesting depending on IQ and the f-stop at 400mm.  Otherwise I would be inclined to adapt my other lenses.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads