Happy New Years M!

Happy New Years!

.

...And happy espresso... Coffee, wonderful thing. Anyhow.

.

What lenses do you have these days R2? *Yawns* Curious if you've handled the RF 100-400, 24-105 f/4-7.1, or RF16.

.

Anyhow, Canon has certainly made a strong argument for the R platform with all those new non-L RF lenses as I've said for the past 2 years (or is it 3/4 now?), however, they still have several key weaknesses that exist for as long as the R/RF platform has existed (and probably will for some time in some regards)...

.

1. The RF 100-400 (not L obviously), it's way too large for a compact telephoto option. It's 3.24 times larger and 2.44 times heavier than it's EF-M 55-200mm sibling. Despite going all plastic, nano-USM, mirrorless optimized and slower apertures, it's still not enough to beat physics of having to cover a FF image circle against an also all plastic, STM motor, mirrorless optimized lens covering a crop image circle. Yes, it's a faster lens in terms of equivalence, but, that speed isn't in fact fast enough to matter in practical use.

.

2. The RP that is the would be M killer although cheap and small enough, cannot do uncropped 4K, does a mere 4FPS in AI servo, and does not have ADC meaning it has a 1 stop disadvantage in Dynamic Range for landscape uses vs ALL the modern EOS M's (as the M100, M5, M6, M200, M6 II, M50, M50 II all have either the 80D or 90D sensor).

.

3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.

.

4. The RF 24-240 is 2.48 times larger and 2.5 times heavier than it's EF-M 18-150 sibling. Again, the nano-USM is nice as is the 24mm on the wide end, but as someone who's handled both, again, although that f/4-6.3 is nice, it makes almost no real difference in terms of true output differences for use case. Again, you've gotta get to a f/4 constant aperture for it to tilt the balance which would make this lens huge.

.

On the large end of things (superzoom and telephoto), the M is simply way more compact. And on the very small end of things (that 22 pancake), the M again goes places the R can't. In terms of sheer technical performance, due to Canon's choice to sensor use, which is a hard one to get around due to cost concerns of developing yet another sensor just for an RP, or, passing down the R6 sensor which I don't see Canon doing, as it would jeproadize the R6's position/profits, it's difficult for Canon to make a RP body compete with an M in sports/action (faster readout needed) or landscape situation (dynamic range).

.

Where do I see things going?

.

I do think Canon's going to update that R/RP this year. But, their options are limited unless they want to throw an R6 sensor in it or make yet another sensor which is costly from R&D standpoint plus opening another line of chips (really?). Hint, they don't want to do either.

.

My bet? Canon will throw an R sensor in an RP footprint, update the AF and WB firmware/software and call it the RP Mark II replacing both the R and RP in one shot. This gives them a small platform, and doesn't compete with the R5/R6, 30MP bump and ADC at a cheaper price point without threatening anything. However comma, the downsides is it will still fail to produce uncropped 4K, the readout speed will lag behind the M6 II which makes it less apt for sports/action duty as that readout speed is key, particularly in telephoto scenarios and the AI-FPS will still be 5-6FPS, tops, again readout and also processing power in a smaller footprint becomes a problem as larger sensors put out more heat, draw more power and the scan time of the 5DIV sensor isn't exactly stellar. They could bump the Single-FPS though just like the R. This will shift the balance for Dynamic range and landscape shooters as 30MP and ADC plus that new RF 16mm f/2.8 is a slick move. But, for those using telephoto action, the bar remains unchanged. Dare I say all those "soccer moms" will be better served with an M, but, the RP Mark II does mark a solid benefit over the RP presently.

.

One of the key things that the M presently lacks, is a fast, compact, f/2.8 (or similar) zoom. I feel Canon is trying to keep a fast native zoom as a strategic asset for the R as they've made several patents like the EF-M 15-45 f/1.8-3.5 in the past but haven't put them into production. The Sigma 18-55 f/2.8, could be adapted much as the "trio" was solving this problem. But like the f/1.4 trio, it came out for the Sony E mount first, and EF-M followed afterwards. Personally I feel a native Canon offering would be superior as it could be wider and faster on the wide end, but, this may never happen. That Sigma may happen. May this year too. This is where shortages and software adaptation come into play delaying it for a time. Hopefully it's 2022 though.

RLight wrote:

Happy New Years!

u 2

...And happy espresso... Coffee, wonderful thing. Anyhow.

long and windy...

.

What lenses do you have these days R2? *Yawns* Curious if you've handled the

RF 100-400, 24-105 f/4-7.1,

likely not  - I have the great RF 24-105L and the great 55-250 stm

or RF16.

this one gets my attention

.

Anyhow, Canon has certainly made a strong argument for the R platform with all those new non-L RF lenses as I've said for the past 2 years (or is it 3/4 now?),

I wait for the 18-45

however, they still have several key weaknesses that exist for as long as the R/RF platform has existed (and probably will for some time in some regards)...

duh - of course, they are just getting statretd

.

1. The RF 100-400 (not L obviously), it's way too large for a compact telephoto option. It's 3.24 times larger and 2.44 times heavier than it's EF-M 55-200mm sibling.

sorry -- the 55-250 stm is its sibling

Despite going all plastic, nano-USM, mirrorless optimized and slower apertures, it's still not enough to beat physics of having to cover a FF image circle against an also all plastic, STM motor, mirrorless optimized lens covering a crop image circle. Yes, it's a faster lens in terms of equivalence, but, that speed isn't in fact fast enough to matter in practical use.

your 55-200 gets 320 fov on 24 mpxl

my 55-250 stm gets 400 fov on 32.5 mpxl at f5.6

the lens is about reach

2. The RP that is the would be M killer although cheap and small enough, cannot do uncropped 4K, does a mere 4FPS in AI servo, and does not have ADC meaning it has a 1 stop disadvantage in Dynamic Range for landscape uses vs ALL the modern EOS

it's a great price, and small and great canon classic colors, and great sooc jpgs --great all-arounder with the RF24-105 f4 L that fits in some of my jacket pockets

M's (as the M100, M5, M6, M200, M6 II, M50, M50 II all have either the 80D or 90D sensor).

true - iso 100 is better dr  on my m6II - but not mid-high iso - and the general RF24-105F4L does fine

.

3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.

too hung up on 22-- the 32 is so much better

.

4. The RF 24-240 is 2.48 times larger and 2.5 times heavier than it's EF-M 18-150 sibling. Again, the nano-USM is nice as is the 24mm on the wide end, but as someone who's handled both, again, although that f/4-6.3 is nice, it makes almost no real difference in terms of true output differences for use case. Again, you've gotta get to a f/4 constant aperture for it to tilt the balance which would make this lens huge.

neither for me

On the large end of things (superzoom and telephoto), the M is simply way more compact. And on the very small end of things (that 22 pancake), the M again goes places the R can't. In terms of sheer technical performance, due to Canon's choice to sensor use, which is a hard one to get around due to cost concerns of developing yet another sensor just for an RP, or, passing down the R6 sensor which I don't see Canon doing, as it would jeproadize the R6's position/profits, it's difficult for Canon to make a RP body compete with an M in sports/action (faster readout needed) or landscape situation (dynamic range).

there are other mfgs that will do it though

.

Where do I see things going?

.

I do think Canon's going to update that R/RP this year. But, their options are limited unless they want to throw an R6 sensor in it or make yet another sensor which is costly from R&D standpoint plus opening another line of chips (really?). Hint, they don't want to do either.

I'd agree - they'll do an R sensor in the RPII

.

My bet? Canon will throw an R sensor in an RP footprint, update the AF and WB firmware/software and call it the RP Mark II replacing both the R and RP in one shot. This gives them a small platform, and doesn't compete with the R5/R6, 30MP bump and ADC at a cheaper price point without threatening anything. However comma, the downsides is it will still fail to produce uncropped 4K, the readout speed will lag behind the M6 II which makes it less apt for sports/action duty as that readout speed is key, particularly in telephoto scenarios and the AI-FPS will still be 5-6FPS, tops, again readout and also processing power in a smaller footprint becomes a problem as larger sensors put out more heat, draw more power and the scan time of the 5DIV sensor isn't exactly stellar. They could bump the Single-FPS though just like the R. This will shift the balance for Dynamic range and landscape shooters as 30MP and ADC plus that new RF 16mm f/2.8 is a slick move. But, for those using telephoto action, the bar remains unchanged. Dare I say all those "soccer moms" will be better served with an M, but, the RP Mark II does mark a solid benefit over the RP presently.

unfortunately -- I want an m5II with IBIS

.

One of the key things that the M presently lacks, is a fast, compact, f/2.8 (or similar) zoom.

go siggy 18-50 for m5II

I feel Canon is trying to keep a fast native zoom as a strategic asset for the R as they've made several patents like the EF-M 15-45 f/1.8-3.5 in the past but haven't put them into production. The Sigma 18-55 f/2.8, could be adapted much as the "trio" was solving this problem. But like the f/1.4 trio, it came out for the Sony E mount first, and EF-M followed afterwards. Personally I feel a native Canon offering would be superior as it could be wider and faster on the wide end, but, this may never happen. That Sigma may happen. May this year too. This is where shortages and software adaptation come into play delaying it for a time. Hopefully it's 2022 though.

u should really give m6II with m32 a try

RLight wrote:

Happy New Years!

.

...And happy espresso... Coffee, wonderful thing. Anyhow.

Wow, you are indeed kicking off the New Year with a bang here!

Happy New Year right back at ya!

.

What lenses do you have these days R2? *Yawns* Curious if you've handled the RF 100-400, 24-105 f/4-7.1, or RF16.

LOL, I think I indulged enough last year!! I do love that 28-70 that you've been so high on, and I did buy the tiny 16 to have an U/W for R.

I'm still debating the Venus 9mm (recti) for M though! It'd complement the Samyang EF-M 8mm fishy very nicely. I like using the U/W's (wide open) for events as much as I do stopped down for landscapes.

I haven't looked at the new 100-400 or the 24-105 variable zoom, as I have those needs covered already (with their RF-L counterparts).

I would however snap up that new little Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 if they release it in EF-M! Heck yeah.

Otherwise, I'm pretty set for M lenses. Maybe a future (fast-autofocusing) 22mm f/1.4 would interest me.

.

Anyhow, Canon has certainly made a strong argument for the R platform with all those new non-L RF lenses as I've said for the past 2 years (or is it 3/4 now?), however, they still have several key weaknesses that exist for as long as the R/RF platform has existed (and probably will for some time in some regards)...

They're certainly pushing ahead as hard as they can. The pro market has of course been their priority (bread and butter), followed closely by the entry level (to attract DSLR cross-overs and newbies). It'll be interesting to see if they address the Enthusiast market any time soon. Like you say, there's still a pretty big gulf in the lineup still.

.

1. The RF 100-400 (not L obviously), it's way too large for a compact telephoto option. It's 3.24 times larger and 2.44 times heavier than it's EF-M 55-200mm sibling. Despite going all plastic, nano-USM, mirrorless optimized and slower apertures, it's still not enough to beat physics of having to cover a FF image circle against an also all plastic, STM motor, mirrorless optimized lens covering a crop image circle. Yes, it's a faster lens in terms of equivalence, but, that speed isn't in fact fast enough to matter in practical use.

Yeah, exactly why the RF 100-400 doesn't interest me.

If I want to go lighter (than my biggie 100-500), then I have the still very solid EF-S 55-250 on my Wish List. I'd perform Larry Rexley's surgery on it and stick the Kenko TC on the back (along with the EF-M adapter), then throw it behind the seat of my car for emergency use (for the times when I don't have the Big Boy along). It'd pair (very nicely I might add) with the M6ii.

.

2. The RP that is the would be M killer although cheap and small enough, cannot do uncropped 4K, does a mere 4FPS in AI servo, and does not have ADC meaning it has a 1 stop disadvantage in Dynamic Range for landscape uses vs ALL the modern EOS M's (as the M100, M5, M6, M200, M6 II, M50, M50 II all have either the 80D or 90D sensor).

I thought long and hard about adding an RP as a second R body, but just couldn't accept that many trade-offs. I'll still take the M6ii along for now, with a nice prime attached.

.

3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.

+1 When I want the smallest kit available, I take either just the leetle 22 or the 15-45 (I have a nice copy).

.

4. The RF 24-240 is 2.48 times larger and 2.5 times heavier than it's EF-M 18-150 sibling. Again, the nano-USM is nice as is the 24mm on the wide end, but as someone who's handled both, again, although that f/4-6.3 is nice, it makes almost no real difference in terms of true output differences for use case. Again, you've gotta get to a f/4 constant aperture for it to tilt the balance which would make this lens huge.

Agree. I skipped the 24-240 and opted instead for the constant-aperture RF 24-105 f/4L.

.

On the large end of things (superzoom and telephoto), the M is simply way more compact. And on the very small end of things (that 22 pancake), the M again goes places the R can't.

Indeed. These two systems complement each other so well.

In terms of sheer technical performance, due to Canon's choice to sensor use, which is a hard one to get around due to cost concerns of developing yet another sensor just for an RP, or, passing down the R6 sensor which I don't see Canon doing, as it would jeproadize the R6's position/profits, it's difficult for Canon to make a RP body compete with an M in sports/action (faster readout needed) or landscape situation (dynamic range).

The M6ii's performance is truly a marvel. I've shot everything with it. For sports and action, my keeper rates actually rival the $$$$ R System.

I do prefer the larger body (R5) to pair with the 100-500 + 1.4x for my birding tho. And the substantial bump in ISO performance is (for me) a necessity, esp for my event shooting.

.

Where do I see things going?

.

I do think Canon's going to update that R/RP this year.

That's indeed a given!

But, their options are limited unless they want to throw an R6 sensor in it or make yet another sensor which is costly from R&D standpoint plus opening another line of chips (really?). Hint, they don't want to do either.

Good point.

.

My bet? Canon will throw an R sensor in an RP footprint, update the AF and WB firmware/software and call it the RP Mark II replacing both the R and RP in one shot. This gives them a small platform, and doesn't compete with the R5/R6, 30MP bump and ADC at a cheaper price point without threatening anything.

Bingo. My thoughts as well. RP Mark II. Entry level. It might even come in less than the RP at its initial retail.

However comma, the downsides is it will still fail to produce uncropped 4K, the readout speed will lag behind the M6 II which makes it less apt for sports/action duty as that readout speed is key, particularly in telephoto scenarios and the AI-FPS will still be 5-6FPS, tops, again readout and also processing power in a smaller footprint becomes a problem as larger sensors put out more heat, draw more power and the scan time of the 5DIV sensor isn't exactly stellar. They could bump the Single-FPS though just like the R. This will shift the balance for Dynamic range and landscape shooters as 30MP and ADC plus that new RF 16mm f/2.8 is a slick move. But, for those using telephoto action, the bar remains unchanged. Dare I say all those "soccer moms" will be better served with an M, but, the RP Mark II does mark a solid benefit over the RP presently.

Agree here too. Although I think the performance bump will be just enough to satisfy the Soccer Moms out there. Canon will want that segment covered with this new release.

.

One of the key things that the M presently lacks, is a fast, compact, f/2.8 (or similar) zoom. I feel Canon is trying to keep a fast native zoom as a strategic asset for the R as they've made several patents like the EF-M 15-45 f/1.8-3.5 in the past but haven't put them into production.

Bingo. Segmentation is Canon's middle name. That's also the reason why we won't see IBIS in an M body for quite some time yet, if ever.

The Sigma 18-55 f/2.8, could be adapted much as the "trio" was solving this problem.

A fast EF-M standard zoom would (for me) be the final piece of the puzzle.

But like the f/1.4 trio, it came out for the Sony E mount first, and EF-M followed afterwards.

Hopefully this fast zoom will follow that precedent.

Personally I feel a native Canon offering would be superior as it could be wider and faster on the wide end, but, this may never happen.

Canon is letting 3rd-party carry the torch from here. EF lens communication protocols are basically open (unlike RF), and 3rd-party is free to step in any time they want.

That Sigma may happen. May this year too. This is where shortages and software adaptation come into play delaying it for a time. Hopefully it's 2022 though.

... and I hope Sigma "wants" to release this zoom in EF-M this year!!!

Happy New Year All!   

R2

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

Happy New Years!

u 2

...And happy espresso... Coffee, wonderful thing. Anyhow.

long and windy...

.

What lenses do you have these days R2? *Yawns* Curious if you've handled the

RF 100-400, 24-105 f/4-7.1,

likely not - I have the great RF 24-105L and the great 55-250 stm

or RF16.

this one gets my attention

.

Anyhow, Canon has certainly made a strong argument for the R platform with all those new non-L RF lenses as I've said for the past 2 years (or is it 3/4 now?),

I wait for the 18-45

however, they still have several key weaknesses that exist for as long as the R/RF platform has existed (and probably will for some time in some regards)...

duh - of course, they are just getting statretd

.

1. The RF 100-400 (not L obviously), it's way too large for a compact telephoto option. It's 3.24 times larger and 2.44 times heavier than it's EF-M 55-200mm sibling.

sorry -- the 55-250 stm is its sibling

Despite going all plastic, nano-USM, mirrorless optimized and slower apertures, it's still not enough to beat physics of having to cover a FF image circle against an also all plastic, STM motor, mirrorless optimized lens covering a crop image circle. Yes, it's a faster lens in terms of equivalence, but, that speed isn't in fact fast enough to matter in practical use.

your 55-200 gets 320 fov on 24 mpxl

my 55-250 stm gets 400 fov on 32.5 mpxl at f5.6

the lens is about reach

2. The RP that is the would be M killer although cheap and small enough, cannot do uncropped 4K, does a mere 4FPS in AI servo, and does not have ADC meaning it has a 1 stop disadvantage in Dynamic Range for landscape uses vs ALL the modern EOS

it's a great price, and small and great canon classic colors, and great sooc jpgs --great all-arounder with the RF24-105 f4 L that fits in some of my jacket pockets

M's (as the M100, M5, M6, M200, M6 II, M50, M50 II all have either the 80D or 90D sensor).

true - iso 100 is better dr on my m6II - but not mid-high iso - and the general RF24-105F4L does fine

.

3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.

too hung up on 22-- the 32 is so much better

.

4. The RF 24-240 is 2.48 times larger and 2.5 times heavier than it's EF-M 18-150 sibling. Again, the nano-USM is nice as is the 24mm on the wide end, but as someone who's handled both, again, although that f/4-6.3 is nice, it makes almost no real difference in terms of true output differences for use case. Again, you've gotta get to a f/4 constant aperture for it to tilt the balance which would make this lens huge.

neither for me

On the large end of things (superzoom and telephoto), the M is simply way more compact. And on the very small end of things (that 22 pancake), the M again goes places the R can't. In terms of sheer technical performance, due to Canon's choice to sensor use, which is a hard one to get around due to cost concerns of developing yet another sensor just for an RP, or, passing down the R6 sensor which I don't see Canon doing, as it would jeproadize the R6's position/profits, it's difficult for Canon to make a RP body compete with an M in sports/action (faster readout needed) or landscape situation (dynamic range).

there are other mfgs that will do it though

.

Where do I see things going?

.

I do think Canon's going to update that R/RP this year. But, their options are limited unless they want to throw an R6 sensor in it or make yet another sensor which is costly from R&D standpoint plus opening another line of chips (really?). Hint, they don't want to do either.

I'd agree - they'll do an R sensor in the RPII

.

My bet? Canon will throw an R sensor in an RP footprint, update the AF and WB firmware/software and call it the RP Mark II replacing both the R and RP in one shot. This gives them a small platform, and doesn't compete with the R5/R6, 30MP bump and ADC at a cheaper price point without threatening anything. However comma, the downsides is it will still fail to produce uncropped 4K, the readout speed will lag behind the M6 II which makes it less apt for sports/action duty as that readout speed is key, particularly in telephoto scenarios and the AI-FPS will still be 5-6FPS, tops, again readout and also processing power in a smaller footprint becomes a problem as larger sensors put out more heat, draw more power and the scan time of the 5DIV sensor isn't exactly stellar. They could bump the Single-FPS though just like the R. This will shift the balance for Dynamic range and landscape shooters as 30MP and ADC plus that new RF 16mm f/2.8 is a slick move. But, for those using telephoto action, the bar remains unchanged. Dare I say all those "soccer moms" will be better served with an M, but, the RP Mark II does mark a solid benefit over the RP presently.

unfortunately -- I want an m5II with IBIS

.

One of the key things that the M presently lacks, is a fast, compact, f/2.8 (or similar) zoom.

go siggy 18-50 for m5II

I feel Canon is trying to keep a fast native zoom as a strategic asset for the R as they've made several patents like the EF-M 15-45 f/1.8-3.5 in the past but haven't put them into production. The Sigma 18-55 f/2.8, could be adapted much as the "trio" was solving this problem. But like the f/1.4 trio, it came out for the Sony E mount first, and EF-M followed afterwards. Personally I feel a native Canon offering would be superior as it could be wider and faster on the wide end, but, this may never happen. That Sigma may happen. May this year too. This is where shortages and software adaptation come into play delaying it for a time. Hopefully it's 2022 though.

u should really give m6II with m32 a try

I’ve thought about going back.

R2D2 wrote:

RLight wrote:

Happy New Years!

.

...And happy espresso... Coffee, wonderful thing. Anyhow.

Wow, you are indeed kicking off the New Year with a bang here!

Happy New Year right back at ya!

.

What lenses do you have these days R2? *Yawns* Curious if you've handled the RF 100-400, 24-105 f/4-7.1, or RF16.

LOL, I think I indulged enough last year!! I do love that 28-70 that you've been so high on, and I did buy the tiny 16 to have an U/W for R.

I don’t use it much these days, but I can’t let go of it. It’s special.

I'm still debating the Venus 9mm (recti) for M though! It'd complement the Samyang EF-M 8mm fishy very nicely. I like using the U/W's (wide open) for events as much as I do stopped down for landscapes.

I haven't looked at the new 100-400 or the 24-105 variable zoom, as I have those needs covered already (with their RF-L counterparts).

I would however snap up that new little Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 if they release it in EF-M! Heck yeah.

Ditto.

Otherwise, I'm pretty set for M lenses. Maybe a future (fast-autofocusing) 22mm f/1.4 would interest me.

Isnt there a third party AF f/1.4 35mm equivalent out there already?

.

Anyhow, Canon has certainly made a strong argument for the R platform with all those new non-L RF lenses as I've said for the past 2 years (or is it 3/4 now?), however, they still have several key weaknesses that exist for as long as the R/RF platform has existed (and probably will for some time in some regards)...

They're certainly pushing ahead as hard as they can. The pro market has of course been their priority (bread and butter), followed closely by the entry level (to attract DSLR cross-overs and newbies). It'll be interesting to see if they address the Enthusiast market any time soon. Like you say, there's still a pretty big gulf in the lineup still.

.

1. The RF 100-400 (not L obviously), it's way too large for a compact telephoto option. It's 3.24 times larger and 2.44 times heavier than it's EF-M 55-200mm sibling. Despite going all plastic, nano-USM, mirrorless optimized and slower apertures, it's still not enough to beat physics of having to cover a FF image circle against an also all plastic, STM motor, mirrorless optimized lens covering a crop image circle. Yes, it's a faster lens in terms of equivalence, but, that speed isn't in fact fast enough to matter in practical use.

Yeah, exactly why the RF 100-400 doesn't interest me.

If I want to go lighter (than my biggie 100-500), then I have the still very solid EF-S 55-250 on my Wish List. I'd perform Larry Rexley's surgery on it and stick the Kenko TC on the back (along with the EF-M adapter), then throw it behind the seat of my car for emergency use (for the times when I don't have the Big Boy along). It'd pair (very nicely I might add) with the M6ii.

.

2. The RP that is the would be M killer although cheap and small enough, cannot do uncropped 4K, does a mere 4FPS in AI servo, and does not have ADC meaning it has a 1 stop disadvantage in Dynamic Range for landscape uses vs ALL the modern EOS M's (as the M100, M5, M6, M200, M6 II, M50, M50 II all have either the 80D or 90D sensor).

I thought long and hard about adding an RP as a second R body, but just couldn't accept that many trade-offs. I'll still take the M6ii along for now, with a nice prime attached.

.

3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.

+1 When I want the smallest kit available, I take either just the leetle 22 or the 15-45 (I have a nice copy).

.

4. The RF 24-240 is 2.48 times larger and 2.5 times heavier than it's EF-M 18-150 sibling. Again, the nano-USM is nice as is the 24mm on the wide end, but as someone who's handled both, again, although that f/4-6.3 is nice, it makes almost no real difference in terms of true output differences for use case. Again, you've gotta get to a f/4 constant aperture for it to tilt the balance which would make this lens huge.

Agree. I skipped the 24-240 and opted instead for the constant-aperture RF 24-105 f/4L.

.

On the large end of things (superzoom and telephoto), the M is simply way more compact. And on the very small end of things (that 22 pancake), the M again goes places the R can't.

Indeed. These two systems complement each other so well.

In terms of sheer technical performance, due to Canon's choice to sensor use, which is a hard one to get around due to cost concerns of developing yet another sensor just for an RP, or, passing down the R6 sensor which I don't see Canon doing, as it would jeproadize the R6's position/profits, it's difficult for Canon to make a RP body compete with an M in sports/action (faster readout needed) or landscape situation (dynamic range).

The M6ii's performance is truly a marvel. I've shot everything with it. For sports and action, my keeper rates actually rival the $$$$ R System.

I do prefer the larger body (R5) to pair with the 100-500 + 1.4x for my birding tho. And the substantial bump in ISO performance is (for me) a necessity, esp for my event shooting.

.

Where do I see things going?

.

I do think Canon's going to update that R/RP this year.

That's indeed a given!

But, their options are limited unless they want to throw an R6 sensor in it or make yet another sensor which is costly from R&D standpoint plus opening another line of chips (really?). Hint, they don't want to do either.

Good point.

.

My bet? Canon will throw an R sensor in an RP footprint, update the AF and WB firmware/software and call it the RP Mark II replacing both the R and RP in one shot. This gives them a small platform, and doesn't compete with the R5/R6, 30MP bump and ADC at a cheaper price point without threatening anything.

Bingo. My thoughts as well. RP Mark II. Entry level. It might even come in less than the RP at its initial retail.

However comma, the downsides is it will still fail to produce uncropped 4K, the readout speed will lag behind the M6 II which makes it less apt for sports/action duty as that readout speed is key, particularly in telephoto scenarios and the AI-FPS will still be 5-6FPS, tops, again readout and also processing power in a smaller footprint becomes a problem as larger sensors put out more heat, draw more power and the scan time of the 5DIV sensor isn't exactly stellar. They could bump the Single-FPS though just like the R. This will shift the balance for Dynamic range and landscape shooters as 30MP and ADC plus that new RF 16mm f/2.8 is a slick move. But, for those using telephoto action, the bar remains unchanged. Dare I say all those "soccer moms" will be better served with an M, but, the RP Mark II does mark a solid benefit over the RP presently.

Agree here too. Although I think the performance bump will be just enough to satisfy the Soccer Moms out there. Canon will want that segment covered with this new release.

.

One of the key things that the M presently lacks, is a fast, compact, f/2.8 (or similar) zoom. I feel Canon is trying to keep a fast native zoom as a strategic asset for the R as they've made several patents like the EF-M 15-45 f/1.8-3.5 in the past but haven't put them into production.

Bingo. Segmentation is Canon's middle name. That's also the reason why we won't see IBIS in an M body for quite some time yet, if ever.

Maybe not. I do think we’ll see a BSI or stacked eventually though. Going stacked would let them drop the shutter btw.

The Sigma 18-55 f/2.8, could be adapted much as the "trio" was solving this problem.

A fast EF-M standard zoom would (for me) be the final piece of the puzzle.

But like the f/1.4 trio, it came out for the Sony E mount first, and EF-M followed afterwards.

Hopefully this fast zoom will follow that precedent.

Personally I feel a native Canon offering would be superior as it could be wider and faster on the wide end, but, this may never happen.

Canon is letting 3rd-party carry the torch from here. EF lens communication protocols are basically open (unlike RF), and 3rd-party is free to step in any time they want.

That Sigma may happen. May this year too. This is where shortages and software adaptation come into play delaying it for a time. Hopefully it's 2022 though.

... and I hope Sigma "wants" to release this zoom in EF-M this year!!!

Happy New Year All!

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

RLight wrote:

u should really give m6II with m32 a try

I’ve thought about going back.

u didn't have the m32 when you had the m6II

the m6II is about the m32 and primes

so it would not be going back but be going forward...

get a 16 and a 56 and run with the two m bodies and 4 primes (16,22, 32, 56)

critical mass-less

you'll not even need the R with that "mass-ive"  28-70

DXO PL5 with deep prime on m6II using F1.4 lenses obviates the need for the HEAVY R and F2

RLight wrote:

Happy New Years!

3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.

New years eve at Copacabana beach, Rio de Janeiro

There were 10 boats with fireworks.

I'm still really happy with my EF-M 22mm.

Jack Calypso wrote:

I came here really to post about that new "Every APS-C mount except EF-M" Sigma 18-50mm lens. I read about it in another thread that is too toxic to post in. I was comparing specs, and if it were available in EF-M mount, would be a LOT shorter and MUCH lighter than my EF-S 17-55. That would be nice.

Isn't it only in Sony E mount?

nnowak wrote:

Canon's current sensor options in general make for a bit of a weird lineup. The 24mp crop sensor has all of the same speed problems as the 26mp RP sensor. The 30mp sensor has a bit better image quality, but again with the readout issues. The R5 sensor and pricing makes perfect sense, but below that, the lineup lacks continuity. Common sense would put 20mp in the RP, 26mp in the R, and 30mp in the R6. The readout speed disparities make that impossible. If someone is coming from the 30mp R, the 20mp R6 is a tough sell as an "upgrade".

Canon may indeed give us an entirely new FF sensor, due to the MP disparity that you mention.  It'd be costly for them, but I think they need to move the entry-level R Series forward a bit.

I think Canon may need to design a new sensor to sort out some of this mess. They could still put it on the old fab that runs the 26mp and 30mp sensors, but optimize the design for full width 4k with pixel binning and line skipping. Rolling shutter would be bad and the video would be a bit soft, but I think most would take those tradeoffs over the current crop factor.

+1 Anything that improves on the RP performance would be a draw I'd think.

R2

Jack Calypso wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

Jack Calypso wrote:

I came here really to post about that new "Every APS-C mount except EF-M" Sigma 18-50mm lens. I read about it in another thread that is too toxic to post in. I was comparing specs, and if it were available in EF-M mount, would be a LOT shorter and MUCH lighter than my EF-S 17-55. That would be nice.

Isn't it only in Sony E mount?

Also L mount. I get so used to every thing being E Mount and MFT, I just assumed it would be for MFD too, but it isn't. Does that mean MFT is dying as well?

Yeah, m4/3 is next in line to get run over by the improving phone cameras (right after 1").

R2

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I don’t use it [RF 28-70 f/2] much these days, but I can’t let go of it. It’s special.

you'll not even need the R with that "mass-ive" 28-70

DXO PL5 with deep prime on m6II using F1.4 lenses obviates the need for the HEAVY R and F2

True, DxO DeepPRIME is the great equalizer.

However there really is something special about the Hulka Zoom. Wide open it's got that special L-Prime quality (actually about 4 primes in one lens). And stopped down it's so sharp it'll cut your arm off if you're not careful. I've been using it to shoot outdoor-wear for catalogs (The North Face in this case). Here is a 100% crop from the R5 + Hulka Zoom @ f/8, 70mm...

Before retouching. Straight from the lens. Click on "original size"

Sorry about the harsh lights (they weren't mine). "Make-up" was out sick too (can you tell?!). This is shown just to demonstrate lens resolution.

I know you would have killed for this lens in your heyday MAC.

R2

I am fairly sure my RP kills my M6 with the 80D sensor at every iso, especially when using the RF 16 mm.

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

u should really give m6II with m32 a try

I’ve thought about going back.

u didn't have the m32 when you had the m6II

the m6II is about the m32 and primes

so it would not be going back but be going forward...

get a 16 and a 56 and run with the two m bodies and 4 primes (16,22, 32, 56)

critical mass-less

you'll not even need the R with that "mass-ive" 28-70

DXO PL5 with deep prime on m6II using F1.4 lenses obviates the need for the HEAVY R and F2

Until the moment when you need to use ISO 32000

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

Happy New Years!

.

...And happy espresso... Coffee, wonderful thing. Anyhow.

New year, new espresso machine. Bliss!

.

What lenses do you have these days R2? *Yawns* Curious if you've handled the RF 100-400, 24-105 f/4-7.1, or RF16.

.

Anyhow, Canon has certainly made a strong argument for the R platform with all those new non-L RF lenses as I've said for the past 2 years (or is it 3/4 now?), however, they still have several key weaknesses that exist for as long as the R/RF platform has existed (and probably will for some time in some regards)...

The delayed RF 18-45mm is the biggest hole in the current lens lineup. A small and cheap shorter telephoto zoom like a 70-250mm is also missing. Bonus points if they crank out one of those compact full frame zooms similar to the Sony 28-60mm or Panasonic 20-60mm to pair with it.

.

1. The RF 100-400 (not L obviously), it's way too large for a compact telephoto option. It's 3.24 times larger and 2.44 times heavier than it's EF-M 55-200mm sibling. Despite going all plastic, nano-USM, mirrorless optimized and slower apertures, it's still not enough to beat physics of having to cover a FF image circle against an also all plastic, STM motor, mirrorless optimized lens covering a crop image circle. Yes, it's a faster lens in terms of equivalence, but, that speed isn't in fact fast enough to matter in practical use.

It is 75 grams lighter than the DSLR stalwart 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II, and only 20mm longer. Paired with the 24-105mm STM, you can cover a lot of ground for not much money or weight. Yeah, the apertures on those zooms are slow, but the 16mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.8 are all small, light, and cheap complements.

.

2. The RP that is the would be M killer although cheap and small enough, cannot do uncropped 4K, does a mere 4FPS in AI servo, and does not have ADC meaning it has a 1 stop disadvantage in Dynamic Range for landscape uses vs ALL the modern EOS M's (as the M100, M5, M6, M200, M6 II, M50, M50 II all have either the 80D or 90D sensor).

Base ISO dynamic range on the RP is not great, but high ISO noise levels are definitely better than any of the M cameras. For most people, the difference in noise levels will be more obvious than the difference in dynamic range. Especially if they are a JPEG shooter.

.

3. That 22 pancake makes the M pocketable when meshed with an M100/M200/M6/M6 II.

It seems many around here are now foregoing the 22mm in favor of the larger 32mm.

.

4. The RF 24-240 is 2.48 times larger and 2.5 times heavier than it's EF-M 18-150 sibling. Again, the nano-USM is nice as is the 24mm on the wide end, but as someone who's handled both, again, although that f/4-6.3 is nice, it makes almost no real difference in terms of true output differences for use case. Again, you've gotta get to a f/4 constant aperture for it to tilt the balance which would make this lens huge.

.

On the large end of things (superzoom and telephoto), the M is simply way more compact. And on the very small end of things (that 22 pancake), the M again goes places the R can't. In terms of sheer technical performance, due to Canon's choice to sensor use, which is a hard one to get around due to cost concerns of developing yet another sensor just for an RP, or, passing down the R6 sensor which I don't see Canon doing, as it would jeproadize the R6's position/profits, it's difficult for Canon to make a RP body compete with an M in sports/action (faster readout needed) or landscape situation (dynamic range).

It is really just against the M6 II where the RP falls short. The M50/M200 don't have anywhere near the performance advantage.

.

Where do I see things going?

.

I do think Canon's going to update that R/RP this year. But, their options are limited unless they want to throw an R6 sensor in it or make yet another sensor which is costly from R&D standpoint plus opening another line of chips (really?). Hint, they don't want to do either.

.

My bet? Canon will throw an R sensor in an RP footprint, update the AF and WB firmware/software and call it the RP Mark II replacing both the R and RP in one shot. This gives them a small platform, and doesn't compete with the R5/R6, 30MP bump and ADC at a cheaper price point without threatening anything. However comma, the downsides is it will still fail to produce uncropped 4K, the readout speed will lag behind the M6 II which makes it less apt for sports/action duty as that readout speed is key, particularly in telephoto scenarios and the AI-FPS will still be 5-6FPS, tops, again readout and also processing power in a smaller footprint becomes a problem as larger sensors put out more heat, draw more power and the scan time of the 5DIV sensor isn't exactly stellar. They could bump the Single-FPS though just like the R. This will shift the balance for Dynamic range and landscape shooters as 30MP and ADC plus that new RF 16mm f/2.8 is a slick move. But, for those using telephoto action, the bar remains unchanged. Dare I say all those "soccer moms" will be better served with an M, but, the RP Mark II does mark a solid benefit over the RP presently.

Canon's current sensor options in general make for a bit of a weird lineup. The 24mp crop sensor has all of the same speed problems as the 26mp RP sensor. The 30mp sensor has a bit better image quality, but again with the readout issues. The R5 sensor and pricing makes perfect sense, but below that, the lineup lacks continuity. Common sense would put 20mp in the RP, 26mp in the R, and 30mp in the R6. The readout speed disparities make that impossible. If someone is coming from the 30mp R, the 20mp R6 is a tough sell as an "upgrade".

I think Canon may need to design a new sensor to sort out some of this mess. They could still put it on the old fab that runs the 26mp and 30mp sensors, but optimize the design for full width 4k with pixel binning and line skipping. Rolling shutter would be bad and the video would be a bit soft, but I think most would take those tradeoffs over the current crop factor.

EOS R and RF 16 is a great combo for 4k with DPAF.

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I don’t use it [RF 28-70 f/2] much these days, but I can’t let go of it. It’s special.

you'll not even need the R with that "mass-ive" 28-70

DXO PL5 with deep prime on m6II using F1.4 lenses obviates the need for the HEAVY R and F2

True, DxO DeepPRIME is the great equalizer.

However there really is something special about the Hulka Zoom. Wide open it's got that special L-Prime quality (actually about 4 primes in one lens). And stopped down it's so sharp it'll cut your arm off if you're not careful. I've been using it to shoot outdoor-wear for catalogs (The North Face in this case). Here is a 100% crop from the R5 + Hulka Zoom @ f/8, 70mm...

Sorry about the harsh lights (they weren't mine). "Make-up" was out sick too (can you tell?!). This is shown just to demonstrate lens resolution.

I know you would have killed for this lens in your heyday MAC.

in my heyday they didn't have 45 mpxl, IBIS, mirrorless eye focus, and 4 primes at F2 all in one

so yeah, professionally who wouldn't want this in the old days when I was in my heyday

those days are over for me ...

for you R2, you are re-joining your second heyday    -- great gear for pro shoots!

for RLight - carry on if pro shoots are needed

R2