…Said the quiet part out loud

rz64 wrote:

RLight wrote:

abruzzopat wrote:

Interesting that the R lens is 2/3 stop slower than the M lens from 6 years ago. Unless I'm mistaken... keep me honest here.

1/3 stop I believe. At 210mm though.. I suspect it’s f/7.1 @ 200mm as well though.

They kept the form factor and weight, which is the point of M. And the cost, if you count the R50.

Concerning form factor and weight: No R-system is as small and light as the M.

Concerning costs: No R-system is as affordable as the M.

Earning more money is the only reason Canon wants you to attract to the R. But where are comparable lenses to the 11-22, 22, 32, Sigma 56mm?

For me, M remains the perfect system for walking and traveling.

Cost they’re the same.

Portability, so close as to be the same.

Operational specs? Although I’m being kind to RF-S and the R50 here, to put mildly I’m very disappointed with Canon killing the M.

I am happy Canon made the R50 and the RF-S glass, and I hope they make more.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MAC wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MAC wrote:

Ali wrote:

RLight wrote:

Ali wrote:

RLight wrote:

Ali wrote:

RLight wrote:

Ali wrote:

abruzzopat wrote:

Interesting that the R lens is 2/3 stop slower than the M lens from 6 years ago. Unless I'm mistaken... keep me honest here.

It is slower. Also heavier, which this ad seems to highlight as if it’s a feature.

However, you do get extra 10mm on the long end!

No, you gain a control ring, better macro ability and 10mm. Not bad.

Indeed, a little better!

(If I get the R50, I will likely get it with the kit including the 55-210, since I do like the M version of this)

…

By itself, the two lens kit, this is nice. The real question is will Canon do more crop glass? The 11-22mm is the one they need-need. By sheer coincidence I just told Canon that on a random survey. Guess they care when you drop 6 grand on a body alone. They should, I’d do it again if they gave me what I want… I’m not convinced they will is the trouble. I’m split on R8 or R50, or just wait it out. Dare I say Nikon might beat ‘em to the punch.

They do need more RF-S glass. While I have the 11-22 and like it, my most used M lens is the 32mm. I do hope they give us some fast RF-S lenses and don’t limit them to slow, “cheap” ones.

People will stone me for saying this but the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM is good stuff. They have this covered with FF glass already. 11-22? Nope.

Folks forget the R50 can take an RF 50 and it becomes an 80, a 35 becomes a 56. And the center of those lenses are sharp too.

Well, sure, but the RF 35mm is larger and heavier than the EF-M 32mm, and I do love the f/1.4.

FF lenses can lose their luster on crop - RLight has no experience with that lens on crop

But I do, on my R7, and it performs very well. Much as I love the EF-M 32 on my M6II, I wouldn't buy an RF-S version for my R7, because the RF 35 is so good already. What it loses in aperture (2/3 stop), it gains in minimum focus and IS. I can handhold the 35 on my R7 down to 1/2s. With my 32 on my M6II, I don't go lower than 1/125.

the R7 + RF 35 isn't exactly a small setup like the m6II + 32 f1.4

True, but the R50 with the 50 F1.8 is probably a bit smaller overall than the M6II with the Sigma 56. Not as good, but still quite useful.

I agree on the ss you discussed

I'm not convinced on the sharp across the frame wide open on that lens without stopping down a bit, and the backdrop blur I want is ff equivalent of 50 fov f2.2 not having to stop down a bit

but as far as sharp across the frame at f1.4 (50 fov f2.2 equivalent), I'll stay with my m32 f1.4 and m6II since I'm not buying a crop R camera, which I think is for reach with long lenses, wildlife and sports

Yes, I basically agree. But my point is that if you do have a crop RF camera for general purpose use, the 35 F1.8 works very well with it. Although I use my R7 mostly for action, I have used it with the 35 a bit for the automatic focus stacking. I used to use my M6II for that with the 32, but the R7 takes it to the next level, with actual stacking done in camera (not just the focus bracket). You still get to keep all the RAWs, if you want to, so you can do the stack in whatever program you want. But I have been very impressed with the in-camera stacking (they call it 'depth compositing') of the R7. I can do a handheld 20-25 shot stack in camera. Amazing!

the m32 f1.4 on 32.5 mpxl m6II is incredible across the frame

True. I find myself using the 22 and 56 more on my M6II, though. Not because the 32 isn't good. It's excellent. But because those two focal lengths suit my shooting better most of the time. The 56 1.4 on the M6II is an amazing portrait combo.

we have a lot of good lenses for sure to select from

I'd like to buy the siggy 16 and 56, but gosh, the cloud of discontinuation hangs over our heads

The m6ii seems like a hell of a camera for its price and size/weight! Truly wrong move by Canon to kill the mount! Such a good lineup that just needed more lenses and a couple more cameras and the mount would be verg popular ir at least amazing imo...can you imagine? An m6ii with car, bird, plane, and train detection? The m6ii definitely deserves one last firware update to add those features before the mount dies. So at least us used buyers can get the m6ii and update it to be the besg camera in the world for under 1000. The sigma 56mm and 16mm m mount primes are also great used...

The "Siggies" are great...idk the fact that they killed the mount also doesn't bither me or make me hesitate to buy or use older dslrs...dinosaurs are fuuuuuuunnnnn!

MAC wrote

the m32 f1.4 on 32.5 mpxl m6II is incredible across the frame

True. I find myself using the 22 and 56 more on my M6II, though. Not because the 32 isn't good. It's excellent. But because those two focal lengths suit my shooting better most of the time. The 56 1.4 on the M6II is an amazing portrait combo.

we have a lot of good lenses for sure to select from

I'd like to buy the siggy 16 and 56, but gosh, the cloud of discontinuation hangs over our heads

Just buy them for the use you can get out of them now. I have taken thousands of casual indoor portraits with the 56 on my M6 and M6II. If it and the camera breaks tomorrow and I can’t replace them, it will still have been money well spent.

rz64 wrote:

SR Hadden wrote:

EOS-M is dead. Small cameras are for ladies (the usual stereotype from Japan).

...... I've expected this answer here in the R-forum.

I made it a point not to start this thread in the M forum. Thought about it. Let them be.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MAC wrote

the m32 f1.4 on 32.5 mpxl m6II is incredible across the frame

True. I find myself using the 22 and 56 more on my M6II, though. Not because the 32 isn't good. It's excellent. But because those two focal lengths suit my shooting better most of the time. The 56 1.4 on the M6II is an amazing portrait combo.

we have a lot of good lenses for sure to select from

I'd like to buy the siggy 16 and 56, but gosh, the cloud of discontinuation hangs over our heads

Just buy them for the use you can get out of them now. I have taken thousands of casual indoor portraits with the 56 on my M6 and M6II. If it and the camera breaks tomorrow and I can’t replace them, it will still have been money well spent.

I have the 100L with IS and the RF 85 F2 IS so I'm moving away from m - I love my m6II and 11-22 and 32 f1.4, but not going to put more money in it

In fact, with -6.5EV, and dxo PL6 NR - the RF 24-105 F4L will get more, and more, and more use - because it becomes an indoor lens on an R8

Exactly. Don't understand why people get so worked up about it. Same as dslrs, they are dead, but so what? USED!

That's got some truth to it tho💀💀lol

You planning on getting an r8?

Hawkypuck wrote:

You planning on getting an r8?

R8 with my RF 85 F2 IS and RF 24-105 F4L IS and using best in class noise redux DXOPL6 would absolutely ROCK clear up to iso 25,600 for useable images - focusing with the great subject detection AF automatically in near moonlight!!!

I already use the RP so I know the grip is great for me (I use with a wrist strap) and the size is small enough for me to carry in one hand for hours

so I am excited about it

Also, I'll expand down the road into birding with the RF 100-400 + RF 1.4 ext

Dang! Gooooooood kit right there...........btw you can get the Canon grip extension for the rp/r8 grip if you need it. Meanwhile, imma looking at a laptop, Dxo or Topaz NR, ef 100-400 II, 1.4 and 2x extenders, and 10-18 is stm....sweeeet!

Get the ef 100-400 ii instead. Much more light and sharper. Also, you can use the 7dii for birding that way too! Plus 1.4 and 2x extenders and ef eor r adapter!

Hawkypuck wrote:

Get the ef 100-400 ii instead. Much more light and sharper. Also, you can use the 7dii for birding that way too! Plus 1.4 and 2x extenders and ef eor r adapter!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVdQT0m3lok

for the reasons in this video, the RF 100 - 400 is more my style

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

kenta101 wrote:

MAC wrote:

55-62mm = f/5
63-84mm = f/5.6
85-142mm = f/6.3
143-210mm = f/7.1

whereas the 55-250 stm

55-63mm = f/4.0
64-99mm = f/4.5
100-154mm = f/5.0
155-250mm = f/5.6

a pathetic aperture range

Might be time to shift to the other side of the paradigm? The cameras can autofocus at these apertures, the software can process the required ISOs, and our wallets can all benefit.

R2

there are FF and Crop options in the new paradigm

R8/R6II/R5 + RF 100 - 400 F5.6 - F8

or

R10/R7/R50 + RF-s 55-210 F5 -F7.1 = FF equivalent of 88 - 336 F8 - F 11.4

FF for me

Yeah, these once thought of as “slow” lenses can really perform!

R2

focus acquisition spec:

R50/R10 -4EV

R7 -5EV

R8/R6II -6.5 EV

the R8 has a whopping 2.5 stops better focus acquisition in low light that is 2.5 X 2.5 = a whopping 6.25 times the amount of light

add that to the 2 stop advantage of the FF 100 -400 on FF over the crop counterpart analysis above, that is a total whopping 2.5 stops + 2 stops = 4.5 stops or a whopping 4.5*4.5 = 20.25 times the amount of light advantage --

wowsers -- that be a whoooooping!

The only thing "that be" is a mathematical disaster. Crop factors and equivalence don't figure into focusing brightness range comparisons. The difference between the bodies is a matter of simple subtraction. R8 vs R7 is 1.5 stops and R8 vs R50 is 2.5 stops. Since the RF-S 55-210mm is 1/3 of a stop faster than the RF 100-400mm, and the EF-S 55-250mm STM is a full stop faster, much of that low light AF advantage is negated. The R8 is still better, but it is not 20.25 time better. Not even close.

nice, first post in R forum in three years- thinking about buying one

RF 100-400 on R8

100-122mm = f/5.6
123-155mm = f/6.3
156-258mm = f/7.1
259-400mm = f/8.0

RF-s 55-210 on R50

55-62mm = f/5
63-84mm = f/5.6
85-142mm = f/6.3
143-210mm = f/7.1

First of All -- The sensor of the R8 is a lot nicer than the R50 😉

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R10,Canon%20EOS%20R6%20Mark%20II

I think you are saying equivalence doesn’t matter, I’m saying get similar FOV and multiply F stop by 1.6

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

kenta101 wrote:

MAC wrote:

55-62mm = f/5
63-84mm = f/5.6
85-142mm = f/6.3
143-210mm = f/7.1

whereas the 55-250 stm

55-63mm = f/4.0
64-99mm = f/4.5
100-154mm = f/5.0
155-250mm = f/5.6

a pathetic aperture range

Might be time to shift to the other side of the paradigm? The cameras can autofocus at these apertures, the software can process the required ISOs, and our wallets can all benefit.

R2

there are FF and Crop options in the new paradigm

R8/R6II/R5 + RF 100 - 400 F5.6 - F8

or

R10/R7/R50 + RF-s 55-210 F5 -F7.1 = FF equivalent of 88 - 336 F8 - F 11.4

FF for me

Yeah, these once thought of as “slow” lenses can really perform!

R2

focus acquisition spec:

R50/R10 -4EV

R7 -5EV

R8/R6II -6.5 EV

the R8 has a whopping 2.5 stops better focus acquisition in low light that is 2.5 X 2.5 = a whopping 6.25 times the amount of light

add that to the 2 stop advantage of the FF 100 -400 on FF over the crop counterpart analysis above, that is a total whopping 2.5 stops + 2 stops = 4.5 stops or a whopping 4.5*4.5 = 20.25 times the amount of light advantage --

wowsers -- that be a whoooooping!

The only thing "that be" is a mathematical disaster. Crop factors and equivalence don't figure into focusing brightness range comparisons. The difference between the bodies is a matter of simple subtraction. R8 vs R7 is 1.5 stops and R8 vs R50 is 2.5 stops. Since the RF-S 55-210mm is 1/3 of a stop faster than the RF 100-400mm, and the EF-S 55-250mm STM is a full stop faster, much of that low light AF advantage is negated. The R8 is still better, but it is not 20.25 time better. Not even close.

nice, first post in R forum in three years- thinking about buying one

RF 100-400 on R8

100-122mm = f/5.6
123-155mm = f/6.3
156-258mm = f/7.1
259-400mm = f/8.0

RF-s 55-210 on R50

55-62mm = f/5
63-84mm = f/5.6
85-142mm = f/6.3
143-210mm = f/7.1

First of All -- The sensor of the R8 is a lot nicer than the R50 😉

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R10,Canon%20EOS%20R6%20Mark%20II

I think you are saying equivalence doesn’t matter, I’m saying get similar FOV and multiply F stop by 1.6

That's hilarious. I didn't catch that till now. Was just saying to that myself it won't be long before Fuji folks join the R forum to "fight". Good luck (they're gonna need it between the R8 and R50 and Canon porting the M glass to RF-S...)