OP
RLight
•
Senior Member
•
Posts: 4,414
Re: …Said the quiet part out loud
Hawkypuck wrote:
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...
I agree. Canon doesn't. I don't make the rules, I do inform others of the rules, sometimes myself at times as like yourself, I'm grumpy about the M's fate.
Now I am happy Canon's made a spiritual successor. To your point, caveats of no third party glass. However, it's got a RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM, RF 50mm f/1.8 STM. Those are no slouches. Folks have been adapting the nifty fifty since the dawn of man on a crop for 80mm. Works just fine, rest assured. It's not f/1.4 though, but it's $100, and small.
The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM is cracking little lens, too.
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmB2jVCF


Obviously on a crop, not FF (above samples from FF). But you can't fault this lens for the price, size. Sound familiar (M-like)? Should. Non-L glass on a small full frame is M like. Where it's not M like is when you need reach. The RF 100-400 isn't compact compared to say an RF-S 55-210. But if you consider an R8, 15-30 or 24-50 vs say an M6 II and 11-22, 15-45, they're not far off both on paper, and practice. I rocked an R + RF 35, 24-240 for a while. The 24-240 is too big. But, that 24-50, fixes that problem... The R + RF 35 a sweet gig, but I always wanted it a bit smaller on the body, like the RP. I wouldn't because the RP made too many compromises. The R8, doesn't. Hrmmmm....