I'm in for the R50... Rationale?

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400). What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

.

Now I'm certain the R8 will be a winner, I am in no way knocking it. Anyone who is even remotely thinking of using and RF 35 f/1.8 or RF 85mm f/2 IS USM with it will be very pleased. And that RF 24-50 is no slouch, but reviewing it's results, they are, well, not L. It's neither a fantastic lens, nor a poor lens on reviewing it from an arm chair. But that too weighed on my calculus here.

.

Wish everyone the best of luck in their journeys and I'll report back on the R50 when it arrives. Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400). What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

.

Now I'm certain the R8 will be a winner, I am in no way knocking it. Anyone who is even remotely thinking of using and RF 35 f/1.8 or RF 85mm f/2 IS USM with it will be very pleased. And that RF 24-50 is no slouch, but reviewing it's results, they are, well, not L. It's neither a fantastic lens, nor a poor lens on reviewing it from an arm chair. But that too weighed on my calculus here.

.

Wish everyone the best of luck in their journeys and I'll report back on the R50 when it arrives. Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.

I would be very surprised if the R50 had different IQ than the R10, given the same lens and settings.  Enjoy your new camera, I hope you find the 18-45 and 55-210 as good as you expect from your research - in my previous experience with an M5, both the 15-45 and 55-200 were somewhat lacklustre.

Meanwhile the big surprise for me is how very good the RF 24-105/4-7.1 is on the R10.

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400).

What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

sorry, your obsession running these slow mediocre zooms on apsc is not what the M6II experience is about.

the M6II experience for most is about the F1.4 primes

oh, the RF-s catalogue has none of those, zero, nada

Canon has made the RF APSC experience for many about reach, wildlife, birding, sports, and putting more pixels on the subject

and for many we would be continually asking where is the 24 fov on the main zoom lens

RF 24-105/4-7.1 + R8 is far more appealing when running zooms

than mediocre RF-s zooms on APSC

.

Now I'm certain the R8 will be a winner, I am in no way knocking it. Anyone who is even remotely thinking of using and RF 35 f/1.8 or RF 85mm f/2 IS USM with it will be very pleased. And that RF 24-50 is no slouch, but reviewing it's results, they are, well, not L. It's neither a fantastic lens, nor a poor lens on reviewing it from an arm chair. But that too weighed on my calculus here.

.

Wish everyone the best of luck in their journeys and I'll report back on the R50 when it arrives. Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.

For me it's the R10.  I have used my Rebel XS since 2007. It's been good.  Everything I have printed has been perfectly acceptable.  I have used the extra money saved from not upgrading bodies for other lenses, light, tripod etc.

It's not about lens selection or sensor tech or firmware.  I won't be able to tell the difference between any of them, I'm just not that discriminating.  The difference in price between the two makes the "upgrade" to the R10 worth it.  Especially if you buy used like I do.

To be totally honest about  it all, I have the budget and I have been living in the camp if "buy what you want".   If you don't have the money, wait until you do.  If you don't get what you -want- then you have a tendancy to look back and say "I just hould have waited" or "I don't like this one I should have spent the extra few dollars, it wouldn't have made a difference"

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400).

What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

sorry, your obsession running these slow mediocre zooms on apsc is not what the M6II experience is about.

the M6II experience for most is about the F1.4 primes

Exactly. Primes, and the 11-22 for me. Out of many thousands of shots with the M6II, I haven’t had a single one affected by shutter shock. I had to try really hard just to get some shutter shock in a test shot using settings I would never use in real life shooting. It’s a complete non issue for me.

oh, the RF-s catalogue has none of those, zero, nada

Canon has made the RF APSC experience for many about reach, wildlife, birding, sports, and putting more pixels on the subject

and for many we would be continually asking where is the 24 fov on the main zoom lens

RF 24-105/4-7.1 + R8 is far more appealing when running zooms

than mediocre RF-s zooms on APSC

.

Now I'm certain the R8 will be a winner, I am in no way knocking it. Anyone who is even remotely thinking of using and RF 35 f/1.8 or RF 85mm f/2 IS USM with it will be very pleased. And that RF 24-50 is no slouch, but reviewing it's results, they are, well, not L. It's neither a fantastic lens, nor a poor lens on reviewing it from an arm chair. But that too weighed on my calculus here.

.

Wish everyone the best of luck in their journeys and I'll report back on the R50 when it arrives. Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit;

...

Wish everyone the best of luck in their journeys and I'll report back on the R50 when it arrives. Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.

Happy to hear your conclusions. Quite a bit of your posts on the M forum have been helpful if not to appease GAS then to understand the gear and its IQ in question.

Personally after having smitten by the R6 and then looking for a lightweight 2nd body I have swung between carrying two R6s to, RP + R6, no R6 but R10 + M6 II.

In the R8 I think I am getting to the point where I think I might settle down.

R6 + RF STM 24-105 and R8 + L14-35.

Going through my past images I realised I shoot in the wide to ultra-wide more than anything else and for most uses the R8 won't be as frustrating as the RP along side R6.

Keeping that RF STM 24-105 on the R6 as R6 probably still is the most forgiving camera I have used.

Between the combination mentioned above I think I will still keep the RF 50 f/1.8 in the mix and hopefully I should be ok.

Cheers,

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400).

What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

sorry, your obsession running these slow mediocre zooms on apsc is not what the M6II experience is about.

the M6II experience for most is about the F1.4 primes

oh, the RF-s catalogue has none of those, zero, nada

Canon has made the RF APSC experience for many about reach, wildlife, birding, sports, and putting more pixels on the subject

and for many we would be continually asking where is the 24 fov on the main zoom lens

RF 24-105/4-7.1 + R8 is far more appealing when running zooms

than mediocre RF-s zooms on APSC

My R3/28-70 ain’t going anywhere. This is my small camera solution. Seems to be the best fit for the moment, and near future. I can’t shoot something that doesn’t yet exist.

So slow zoom sure. Small light too. If I want punch, Goliath is on tap, with 5 primes in one. The R3/28-70 is in itself a system. A no lens swap never miss a shot, within reach, system.

.

Now I'm certain the R8 will be a winner, I am in no way knocking it. Anyone who is even remotely thinking of using and RF 35 f/1.8 or RF 85mm f/2 IS USM with it will be very pleased. And that RF 24-50 is no slouch, but reviewing it's results, they are, well, not L. It's neither a fantastic lens, nor a poor lens on reviewing it from an arm chair. But that too weighed on my calculus here.

.

Wish everyone the best of luck in their journeys and I'll report back on the R50 when it arrives. Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.

I also have the R50 with lenses on order, and I am looking forward to it.

However to avoid disappointment I am also really trying to keep in mind that this is not going to be able to duplicate my M6II + 32mm experience.

The question is whether this setup will be able to satisfy my "compact but capable" camera "need." I may have to add a small prime RF lens, like the 24 or 35.

I ordered the R50 as well. I like to take a second body with me on longer trips as backup just in case. I gave away my Canon R and the 6D II no longer works as backup as I have replaced most lenses to RF. R50 weighs half of my R5 and will also be useful for timelapses as well. Only thing I dislike is having two different types of batteries.

MikeJ9116 wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400).

What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

sorry, your obsession running these slow mediocre zooms on apsc is not what the M6II experience is about.

the M6II experience for most is about the F1.4 primes

oh, the RF-s catalogue has none of those, zero, nada

Canon has made the RF APSC experience for many about reach, wildlife, birding, sports, and putting more pixels on the subject

and for many we would be continually asking where is the 24 fov on the main zoom lens

RF 24-105/4-7.1 + R8 is far more appealing when running zooms

I think the R8 is going to take APS-C out of play for many considering, or currently using, Canon APS-C cameras. It has for me. I am going to be down to using the R8 and a smartphone sometime in the spring.

Completely agree. That R8 is a mini-hot rod at a hot price, for what you get.

than mediocre RF-s zooms on APSC

.

Now I'm certain the R8 will be a winner, I am in no way knocking it. Anyone who is even remotely thinking of using and RF 35 f/1.8 or RF 85mm f/2 IS USM with it will be very pleased. And that RF 24-50 is no slouch, but reviewing it's results, they are, well, not L. It's neither a fantastic lens, nor a poor lens on reviewing it from an arm chair. But that too weighed on my calculus here.

.

Wish everyone the best of luck in their journeys and I'll report back on the R50 when it arrives. Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.

Ali wrote:

I also have the R50 with lenses on order, and I am looking forward to it.

However to avoid disappointment I am also really trying to keep in mind that this is not going to be able to duplicate my M6II + 32mm experience.

The question is whether this setup will be able to satisfy my "compact but capable" camera "need." I may have to add a small prime RF lens, like the 24 or 35.

The 32 is hard to beat. There’s reasons to stay M, that’s a big one.

My 32 got, neglected. 28-70 does it better. Now that’s not for everyone. Again, the 32 is a big reason to stay M.

justmeMN wrote:

RLight wrote: Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.

Congratulations!

"The R50's most compelling feature is probably its autofocus system. It's a relatively simple-to-use but powerful system that combines a series of subject recognition modes with tenacious tracking." -DPR Hands On

That's pretty cool for a camera in that price range.

I’m buying the R50 for the lenses. You should always put glass first. Little tip.

That 55-210 is small, put gives reach and macro, when I want it (travel).

drsnoopy wrote:

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400). What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

.

Now I'm certain the R8 will be a winner, I am in no way knocking it. Anyone who is even remotely thinking of using and RF 35 f/1.8 or RF 85mm f/2 IS USM with it will be very pleased. And that RF 24-50 is no slouch, but reviewing it's results, they are, well, not L. It's neither a fantastic lens, nor a poor lens on reviewing it from an arm chair. But that too weighed on my calculus here.

.

Wish everyone the best of luck in their journeys and I'll report back on the R50 when it arrives. Pre-ordered it a bit ago. Cheers.

I would be very surprised if the R50 had different IQ than the R10, given the same lens and settings. Enjoy your new camera, I hope you find the 18-45 and 55-210 as good as you expect from your research - in my previous experience with an M5, both the 15-45 and 55-200 were somewhat lacklustre.

Looks like a JPEG tweak, but it’s there. Subtle but pleasant.

Meanwhile the big surprise for me is how very good the RF 24-105/4-7.1 is on the R10.

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400).

What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

RF 24-105/4-7.1 + R8 is far more appealing when running zooms

than mediocre RF-s zooms on APSC

Oh yeah, R8 + 24-105mm stm any day! Need reach? 24-240mm.

On 24Mp crop sensors the 18-35mm f/1.8 Art (@f/2.5 or so) is the only zoom being able to squeeze everything out of such a sensor. Everything else is so so.  My A7IV + 28-60mm combo @ f/7.1 beats it, same range, way more compact, oh, and IBIS.

But if a slow aps-c zoom + updated jpg-engine makes you happy >> buy it!  Everything making you happy is a good thing.

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400).

What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

RF 24-105/4-7.1 + R8 is far more appealing when running zooms

than mediocre RF-s zooms on APSC

Oh yeah, R8 + 24-105mm stm any day! Need reach? 24-240mm.

On 24Mp crop sensors the 18-35mm f/1.8 Art (@f/2.5 or so) is the only zoom being able to squeeze everything out of such a sensor. Everything else is so so. My A7IV + 28-60mm combo @ f/7.1 beats it, same range, way more compact, oh, and IBIS.

But if a slow aps-c zoom + updated jpg-engine makes you happy >> buy it! Everything making you happy is a good thing.

good points

glad you like your 28-60

Sony may have A7CII soon also

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

I decided on the R50 + twin lens kit; I'm crossing my fingers it doesn't have hit rate problems like the M system did. Between DIGICX and EFCS, and I noted Canon made a big deal about specifying the RF-S glass uses Lead-Screw type STM on it's marketing material on Canon Korea and Japan, I suspect it's cured.

.

Why not the R10? I’m a sucker for the EF-M 18-150 which Canon adapted and kitted with the R10, which weighed heavily on the “pro” side of the decision pendulum. But against it were the even smaller size of the R50, and, the R50 gets the 18-45 and 55-220 in its kit. I also was a sucker for the 15-45 footprint on the M50 II, which Canon kept here. What swayed me? DPP4, reviewing images from the R50 and R10 yesterday, RAW and JPEG, Canons done something with the JPEG engine and sharpness on the latest R6 II, R8 and R50 that previous models don’t get. It’s not “fair” but Canon passes software upgrades to newer models, and often without backporting via firmware to older models. Canons a stickler when it comes to keeping image rendering static after a Camera is launched. AF upgrades get passed down but IQ? No. So that’s a big weight on the pendulum.

.

Although I loved my M system for the time, I really got weary of having to cull out shots that were slightly out of focus (M50 II) or had shutter shock (M6 II). My G5X Mark II was beating both out, that's when you scratch your head. My R's have never had this problem.

.

Why not the R8? I held both the M50 and RP at BestBuy the other day, again. I do like the form factor of the M50, which the R50 mimics, which the RP mimics the R8. Also, reviewing samples out there from DPR on the 18-45 from both the R10 and R50, and the 55-210 on the R50, and PopCo from the R10/18-45, and looking at the samples and data on the 18-45, 55-210 from Canon Korea, Japan, I can tell the 55-200 and 55-210 have the same "pop". That's a big deal. Also I want a system like the M that is a system, that I can throw in a bag. R8 ain't gonna do that. 100-400? Nice lens, again, pair with the R8? No, I won't and that's a "medium bag" affair. Also, that 15-30, not to pick on it, reviewing samples on Flickr, PopCo, and hearing others on the forum? Nope. I'll either grab a RF16 f/2.8 and slap that on my R3, or consider an RF 15-35 f/2.8L and pray Canon does an RF-S 11-22. If they don't? Truthfully I have no problem going wide angle with FF only. Not like I didn't on the 5D Mark III with the 17-40L days.

.

This really gets into the weeds where Canon cuts corners in certain spots on certain lenses (RF 15-30), and, footprint (100-400).

What I'm after is end result of handling (M-like experience) and IQ (APS-C minimum, with lenses that give "Pop") for my use case.

RF 24-105/4-7.1 + R8 is far more appealing when running zooms

than mediocre RF-s zooms on APSC

Oh yeah, R8 + 24-105mm stm any day! Need reach? 24-240mm.

On 24Mp crop sensors the 18-35mm f/1.8 Art (@f/2.5 or so) is the only zoom being able to squeeze everything out of such a sensor. Everything else is so so. My A7IV + 28-60mm combo @ f/7.1 beats it, same range, way more compact, oh, and IBIS.

But if a slow aps-c zoom + updated jpg-engine makes you happy >> buy it! Everything making you happy is a good thing.

In this case Canon just has a better option available to me than previous, that’s all. Sony is maturing but I don’t know of a FF system that compares to M or RF-S once you consider a 55-200 or 55-210. That’s where FF gets you. Unless somebody does a something to 300mm zoom with diffraction optics. Really the R50 represents a successor to the M50 which I loved, but hated the misses. If this fixes that? Yes, happy. Should it fail to? (Which I haven’t ruled out) it goes back. I suspect it won’t fail though, I think. The readout speed gives me pause, but I never saw this sort of thing with the R or RP, which also have slow readout. Lead screw stm, EFCS and DIGICX? It’s probably fine. We’ll see.