DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

…Said the quiet part out loud

Started 1 month ago | Discussions
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 18,487
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud

RLight wrote:

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...)

agree, R8 is a killer camera

-6.5 EV -and then -3.2 EV at F4 - will focus in full moonlight at f4 with that great aF

It makes my RF 24 -105 F4L an indoor lens

I was never a zoom shooter before this but the R8 will change that

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS RP Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R8 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM +7 more
OP RLight Senior Member • Posts: 4,414
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

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...)

agree, R8 is a killer camera

-6.5 EV -and then -3.2 EV at F4 - will focus in full moonlight at f4 with that great aF

It makes my RF 24 -105 F4L an indoor lens

I was never a zoom shooter before this but the R8 will change that

Just wait till the R8 goes on a BF sale… The RP and 24-240 was a grand some time ago? Fuji can’t fight that kinda of discount action with their existing business model. The R8, can.

 RLight's gear list:RLight's gear list
Canon EOS R3 Canon EOS R50 Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM Canon RF-S 18-45mm Canon RF-S 55-210mm F5.0-7.1 IS STM
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 9,074
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
2

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

No.  This thread was linked in the M forum.

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

No, I am saying that equivalence and crop factors have absolutely no bearing on low light AF ratings.  In terms of equivalence and the above lenses, the R8 has a one stop advantage over the R50. Not 2 stops, not 2.5 stops, and certainly not 4.5 stops.

Alastair Norcross
Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 9,874
Re: Messages
2

RLight wrote:

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.

You know this isn’t the Sharks and the Jets, right? A lot of us shoot with both M and R cameras, and don’t view them as mortal enemies of each other. Sony, on the other hand… 😀

-- hide signature --

“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R7 Canon EOS R6 Mark II Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +24 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 9,074
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
2

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

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...)

agree, R8 is a killer camera

-6.5 EV -and then -3.2 EV at F4 - will focus in full moonlight at f4 with that great aF

It makes my RF 24 -105 F4L an indoor lens

I was never a zoom shooter before this but the R8 will change that

Just wait till the R8 goes on a BF sale… The RP and 24-240 was a grand some time ago?

No.  Those deals were kits with the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 STM

Fuji can’t fight that kinda of discount action with their existing business model. The R8, can.

The R8 is a massive upgrade from the RP, but Canon has still restricted it in too many ways.

R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 26,528
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
1

nnowak wrote:

The R8 is a massive upgrade from the RP, but Canon has still restricted it in too many ways.

Actually at this price point I think Canon hit a home run with the R8.  IMHO it’s going to be a hugely popular (and successful) camera, with a VERY wide appeal.

R2

-- hide signature --

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

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R6 Canon EOS R7 +1 more
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 18,487
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
1

nnowak wrote:

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

No. This thread was linked in the M forum.

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

No, I am saying that equivalence and crop factors have absolutely no bearing on low light AF ratings. In terms of equivalence and the above lenses, the R8 has a one stop advantage over the R50. Not 2 stops, not 2.5 stops, and certainly not 4.5 stops.

R8 vs R50 is 2.5 stops EV low light focus capabilities - that is 2.5 squared or 6.25 times the amount of light that the R50 needs to focus against the R8 in low light.

the lenses are much more complex than you calculate - they are different animals - the crop lens gets further crushed if it tries to crop to a 400 fov to match the FF 400 mm

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS RP Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R8 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM +7 more
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 18,487
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
1

R2D2 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The R8 is a massive upgrade from the RP, but Canon has still restricted it in too many ways.

Actually at this price point I think Canon hit a home run with the R8. IMHO it’s going to be a hugely popular (and successful) camera, with a VERY wide appeal.

R2

FF goodness + Canon's dominance in AF - hard for smaller entities to keep up when they keep losing funds to 3rd party lens mfg'rs ...

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS RP Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R8 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM +7 more
AMW20 New Member • Posts: 15
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
4

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The R8 is a massive upgrade from the RP, but Canon has still restricted it in too many ways.

Actually at this price point I think Canon hit a home run with the R8. IMHO it’s going to be a hugely popular (and successful) camera, with a VERY wide appeal.

R2

FF goodness + Canon's dominance in AF - hard for smaller entities to keep up when they keep losing funds to 3rd party lens mfg'rs ...

Why root against having 3rd party support? You wouldn't want more options as a consumer? I get why Canon did it but that doesn't mean I like it.

 AMW20's gear list:AMW20's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel T6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +1 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 9,074
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
4

R2D2 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The R8 is a massive upgrade from the RP, but Canon has still restricted it in too many ways.

Actually at this price point I think Canon hit a home run with the R8. IMHO it’s going to be a hugely popular (and successful) camera, with a VERY wide appeal.

R2

I don't doubt that it will be successful.  It is relatively cheap and it is full frame, and for some people, that is all they care about.

In many ways, the cheaper, and nearly 3 year older Nikon Z5 is a much better camera.  The Z5 has IBIS, dual card slots, a higher resolution EVF, and an actual real battery instead of that tiny LP-E17.  I know CIPA ratings don't necessarily reflect reality, but the R8 is only rated for 150 shots when using the EVF.  The RP is rated for 250 shots with the EVF.  The M6 II that uses the same battery is rated for 305 shots, and the M6 II would have been firing its internal flash for the CIPA testing.  Canon did their best to make the R8 wholly unsuitable for event photography.

MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 18,487
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
1

AMW20 wrote:

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The R8 is a massive upgrade from the RP, but Canon has still restricted it in too many ways.

Actually at this price point I think Canon hit a home run with the R8. IMHO it’s going to be a hugely popular (and successful) camera, with a VERY wide appeal.

R2

FF goodness + Canon's dominance in AF - hard for smaller entities to keep up when they keep losing funds to 3rd party lens mfg'rs ...

Why root against having 3rd party support? You wouldn't want more options as a consumer? I get why Canon did it but that doesn't mean I like it.

I'm not rooting against, just acknowledging the paradigm has changed for survival in a diminishing market

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS RP Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R8 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM +7 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 9,074
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
3

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

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

No. This thread was linked in the M forum.

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

No, I am saying that equivalence and crop factors have absolutely no bearing on low light AF ratings. In terms of equivalence and the above lenses, the R8 has a one stop advantage over the R50. Not 2 stops, not 2.5 stops, and certainly not 4.5 stops.

R8 vs R50 is 2.5 stops EV low light focus capabilities - that is 2.5 squared or 6.25 times the amount of light that the R50 needs to focus against the R8 in low light.

Only if you are using the same apertures on both bodies, which you are not.

the lenses are much more complex than you calculate - they are different animals - the crop lens gets further crushed if it tries to crop to a 400 fov to match the FF 400 mm

Just adapt the EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 STM.  No need to crop for 400mm equivalent and the lens is a full stop faster than the RF 100-400mm.  Now, your AF advantage is down to 1.5 stops and equivalence is basically equal.

$1499 + $649 versus $679 + $99 + $299.  The crop kit is half the price and gives up very little in terms of image quality.  You could swap the R50 for the R7 with more pixels, bigger buffer, weather sealing, dual card slots, IBIS, and a real battery, and you would still be money ahead.

R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 26,528
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The R8 is a massive upgrade from the RP, but Canon has still restricted it in too many ways.

Actually at this price point I think Canon hit a home run with the R8. IMHO it’s going to be a hugely popular (and successful) camera, with a VERY wide appeal.

R2

I don't doubt that it will be successful. It is relatively cheap and it is full frame, and for some people, that is all they care about.

In many ways, the cheaper, and nearly 3 year older Nikon Z5 is a much better camera. The Z5 has IBIS, dual card slots, a higher resolution EVF, and an actual real battery instead of that tiny LP-E17. I know CIPA ratings don't necessarily reflect reality, but the R8 is only rated for 150 shots when using the EVF. The RP is rated for 250 shots with the EVF. The M6 II that uses the same battery is rated for 305 shots, and the M6 II would have been firing its internal flash for the CIPA testing. Canon did their best to make the R8 wholly unsuitable for event photography.

I have a number of (Nikon) shooting buddies who’ve tried the Z5, and promptly sold it due to poor performance. No way would I ever recommend that body. The Z9 is the only Nikon ML body that focuses worth a darn (in their opinion). And I’d go so far as to say that Canon’s DIGIC X out-performs the Z9 (in my opinion)!

Your priorities might be different than others here, but that doesn’t invalidate others’ choices at all. You should at least consider that.

R2

-- hide signature --

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

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R6 Canon EOS R7 +1 more
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 18,487
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

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

No. This thread was linked in the M forum.

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

No, I am saying that equivalence and crop factors have absolutely no bearing on low light AF ratings. In terms of equivalence and the above lenses, the R8 has a one stop advantage over the R50. Not 2 stops, not 2.5 stops, and certainly not 4.5 stops.

R8 vs R50 is 2.5 stops EV low light focus capabilities - that is 2.5 squared or 6.25 times the amount of light that the R50 needs to focus against the R8 in low light.

Only if you are using the same apertures on both bodies, which you are not.

the lenses are much more complex than you calculate - they are different animals - the crop lens gets further crushed if it tries to crop to a 400 fov to match the FF 400 mm

Just adapt the EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 STM. No need to crop for 400mm equivalent and the lens is a full stop faster than the RF 100-400mm. Now, your AF advantage is down to 1.5 stops and equivalence is basically equal.

$1499 + $649 versus $679 + $99 + $299. The crop kit is half the price and gives up very little in terms of image quality. You could swap the R50 for the R7 with more pixels, bigger buffer, weather sealing, dual card slots, IBIS, and a real battery, and you would still be money ahead.

I'm addicted to FF IQ

I have the 55-250 on crop already, I might do the RF 800 instead

I'm selling the 6d and keeping the 7d2

on the battery, Bryan says he got a full day of shooting with two batteries and there are power saving methods that can extend the life.  I do shorter events, no weddings and have multiple cameras -- would be three cameras using the multiple 17 batteries

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS RP Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R8 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM +7 more
Maxmolly7
Maxmolly7 Senior Member • Posts: 1,480
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
1

justmeMN wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

R is all about generating revenue and not customer satisfaction!

R is all about having the same mount for both APS-C and FF. like Sony and Nikon do.

The R mount is the result of my thesis above. 🙃

-- hide signature --

May THE LIGHT be with you!

 Maxmolly7's gear list:Maxmolly7's gear list
Sony RX10 IV Sony RX100 VII Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM +16 more
KEG
KEG Veteran Member • Posts: 4,908
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud

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.

Well, EF-S 55-250 fits R50 via the RF adapter, so R50 wins over M50 by having a control ring.

-- hide signature --

KEG

 KEG's gear list:KEG's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM +21 more
KEG
KEG Veteran Member • Posts: 4,908
Re: Messages

Alastair Norcross wrote:

RLight wrote:

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.

You know this isn’t the Sharks and the Jets, right? A lot of us shoot with both M and R cameras, and don’t view them as mortal enemies of each other. Sony, on the other hand… 😀

I hope we will get a M6 like RF body, hopefully that will be the R9.

-- hide signature --

“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

-- hide signature --

KEG

 KEG's gear list:KEG's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM +21 more
KEG
KEG Veteran Member • Posts: 4,908
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
1

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

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...)

agree, R8 is a killer camera

-6.5 EV -and then -3.2 EV at F4 - will focus in full moonlight at f4 with that great aF

It makes my RF 24 -105 F4L an indoor lens

I was never a zoom shooter before this but the R8 will change that

Just wait till the R8 goes on a BF sale… The RP and 24-240 was a grand some time ago?

No. Those deals were kits with the 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 STM

Fuji can’t fight that kinda of discount action with their existing business model. The R8, can.

The R8 is a massive upgrade from the RP, but Canon has still restricted it in too many ways.

No, not really.

-- hide signature --

KEG

 KEG's gear list:KEG's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM +21 more
justmeMN Forum Pro • Posts: 10,705
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud

Sittatunga wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

R is all about generating revenue and not customer satisfaction!

R is all about having the same mount for both APS-C and FF. like Sony and Nikon do.

R wasn't. R7, R10, R50 and RF-S are.

By R, I meant the RF mount.

Maxmolly7
Maxmolly7 Senior Member • Posts: 1,480
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud

justmeMN wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

R is all about generating revenue and not customer satisfaction!

R is all about having the same mount for both APS-C and FF. like Sony and Nikon do.

R wasn't. R7, R10, R50 and RF-S are.

By R, I meant the RF mount.

Me too...

-- hide signature --

May THE LIGHT be with you!

 Maxmolly7's gear list:Maxmolly7's gear list
Sony RX10 IV Sony RX100 VII Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads