RLight wrote:
Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.
1. The Autofocus is really slick. Canon refers to this as "Deep learning technology EOS iTR AF X" which is present on the R6 II and newer R8 and now R50. What's interesting is watching it in effect. On paper, it looks like it's just newer subject detection algorithms. Wrong. There is now variable size block partitioning going on with AF, which is similar to what's used in x264/x265 motion estimation technology for video compression. The block partitioning AF is only visible thus far, in Auto mode. Canon may be playing with this in R50 and soon R8, maybe. But there is something special going on here where no offense to my R3, the R50 has a leg up in "Auto" AF. Sure, my eye-controlled AF ain't going out of style, but man, the camera is yet smarter still. It makes Sony look bad. Fro isn't wrong, the R50 may be superior to the Z9, he could be right, the R50 is superior to my R3 in the auto-AF department. Lets hope Canon back ports this software. It could be hardware too, which would be unfortunate. I suspect it is (both).
.
2. Handling. The R50 "passes" a couple tests... Fits in my cupholder with a lens attached (facing down), fits in my drawer for storage at home, fits in my driver's seat door handle, again, lens down. Light enough you forget it's on you, very M-like. Handles a bit better than the M50 Mark II, too. The LCD takes more to pull out, which is annoying. Buttons are well placed. That ISO button is the most customizable of the bunch. AF or Digital TC seem to be the best fits for it, but, maybe just plain ol ISO might be too. More on that another time.
.
3. Image quality. The R50 shares the same R10 sensor, but, like the R6 Mark II's new Deep Learning AF, I noticed it has subtle but definite improvements to SOOC JPEG. There’s something going on with fine detail rendering. Also the R50 just doesn't miss a beat with metering; it is smarter than my R3 with dealing with mixed lighting environments; I found myself adjusting my exposure comp over the weekend in restaurants with my parents (visiting) for bright-backlit. R50? Nope. AWB? The R3 in video although smart, it can, even with it's super smart AWB, goof with mixed lighting, still. R50? Nope. It's really an impressive technological terror in the processing department. My R3 may be a beast, but Canon has clearly been busy in the software and probably processing department the past year improving things yet further. Not that the R3 is a poor performer, it smokes an R5, but the R50 leaves em both behind. In RAW image quality, the R50 performs in practice what Photons To Photons has shown, better in higher ISOs than the M50 Mark II, but not quite as good as an M6 Mark II. Very close. All to say about 1/3-1/2 stop improvement in low light performance vs the M50/M50 II, but a touch behind the M6 II / R7.
.
4. Lenes. Oh Canon, this is where things for the R50 turn negative, even me as a Canon-fan am going to turn negative. Although I personally don't mind 28mm, or 18mm on a crop, the 18mm on the RF-S 18-45 is more like 18.9mm, which is a thing if you look at the patents for these lenses, there's no such thing as 18mm, it's 18.02, or 18.7, or in this case, I think it's 18.9999999 so as to not be 19mm. Loosing 3mm although a somewhat big deal, loosing 3.9mm? Hurts more. I can tell. Ugh. f/4.5? Hurts indoors. The R50 may have picked up about 1/3-1/2 stops of noise performance, but gave up more on the glass. I have to say my R3 although it was here to stay, it's here to stay. Geeze Canon, give us some faster native RF-S glass, and, give us wider RF-S glass. Although I was thrilled with the performance of the 18-45 and 55-210 at the fair and Phinizy swap in Sunny16-like conditions, indoors? Nope. Wide angle? Nope. Although we knew this, like yeah, it's true. Now those darker lenses don't hurt you outside, again, this camera has another 1/3 stop at least in ISO performance, so shooting say ISO800 doesn't really show up like it would an M50, but indoors when you're punching 2000-4000 because you lost another 2/3 stops on the stock lens? Yeah.
.
5. Video. I've touched on this a bit, the R50's 4K output is FANTASTIC. I put this in caps as it's nice and saturated, but not overly so, 4K is detailed, I did get a heat warning because I was exposing my R50 to a TON of sunlight yesterday at the swamp and shooting a ton, which is notable, it didn't stop me but there is definite concern for heat-exhaustion of this guy and 4K. I'm really, really happy of the footage from the fair. It's almost like being there. For a "cheap" camera too relatively speaking. Makes smartphones look really poor. Now IBIS would've been nice though, I'll grant you that. It handles static hand-holding compensation well, but walking and pushing a stroller on a wooded deck at the swamp? Yeah. Good for what it is though, excellent in fact.
.
6. About that dust cleaning. 2 pieces, I blew them off with my mouth, a no-no, oh well, worked fine at the swamp. I used a prim and proper air rocket earlier today even though I didn't spot any dust. You should get an air rocket.
.
7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on.
.
I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)
https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.html
And it seems Canon does things in generations if you will.
.
Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs.
.
I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details...
.
Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...
The EF-S 10-18mm STM, 18-55mm STM and 55-250mm STM are all great lenses and are cheap right now.
I am interested in how those lenses work on the R50, R10 and R7.
