Thought I'd share my thoughts on the recent Q&A that DPR did for the RP, quite a lengthy read fair warning, took a while to make this post, but, I felt it necessary to both provide some rebuttal as I feel DPR missed a few key points worth mentioning and give my take on the matter.
Most of the video's key points are transcribed below for read only folks that didn't bother to watch it:
From the intro: "Cheapest FF launched ever launched... but rises significantly after you add the lens"
Q1: "Why didn't Canon make an affordable RF kit lens to match?"
A1: "What we have is the EF adapted (EF 24-105 IS STM + adapter mounted to the RP is being held by Richard)... there's no real RF lens that's a particular good match for this body... there really isn't a cheap option... you forget how big that's going to be (the EF 24-105) with the adapter"
My thoughts: I'll agree with Richard that the recently announced RF 24-240 will make a great travel lens (he mentioned it but I didn't transcribe to shorten this already long post), however, Canon Japan is bundling the RP with the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM, and for good reason. 35mm is "the" street lens, and many point and shoots ala X100 series employ a single fixed 35mm lens; lots of folks are fine just with that. The RF 35mm, at $499 MSRP and less than 300g, and available now, this would seem to be a logical lens to suggest but wasn't mentioned even once during the video. At $1299 (body) and $499 (RF 35mm lens), you're still clocking in at less weight and less bulk than the Nikon Z6 and Z 35mm f/1.8 by comparison and less cost than the Z6 body alone, not to mention a presently free bundled EF/S adapter.
Size weight comparison below of the Z6+Z35 vs RP+RF35:
http://j.mp/2Sj6YiN
Q2: About upgrading from 6D and 6DII owners: "What would you say to them if they were looking to upgrade to something like this (EOS RP pointed at)"
A2: "I'd say probably not to be honest. Unless there are some RF lenses you really really want, this is essentially a downgrade... this is a much much more entry level camera... it makes much more sense if you're starting from APS-C"
My thoughts: I'd have to disagree here. I'll start with cheating by providing a generated comparison to the original 6D which isn't all encompassing, but it's a resource for this purpose...
https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/canon-rp-vs-canon-6d
The RP provides much wider AF coverage than the 6D or 6DII, has touch and drag AF (which the 6D/II lacks an AF joystick), more FPS than the 6D (but not the 6DII), more buffer than the 6D, DPAF video (vs 6D), smaller, lighter, gives you a seat at the RF table (for say that RF 35mm or 24-240), has 1/3 stop better ISO (than the 6D), 6MP more resolution than the 6D, has DIGIC8 which improves metering, auto white balance, has eye-AF, and facial tracking, does away with auto focus micro adjustment making for sharper photos especially at shallow depth of field, does -5EV (something neither the 6D or II do) for low light AF, 4K in some form (which neither do), can take EF-S glass with that adapter which neither can do, has better connectivity for syncing to your smartphone. Really, in my book, the RP is arguably the 6DII we should've had at $1299 and the size/weight. Where the 6D is going to give you better mileage is in slight dynamic range, for landscapes, but, mind you at the expense of both 6MP and RF glass which are just going to give you a lot more resolution so it's not a straight keep your 6D if you do landscapes. Vs the 6D II though, the 6DII gives you more FPS which is important for sports. But, it's hard to ignore eye-AF and facial tracking with that wider AF coverage for anyone who does portraits, or even family gatherings ala candid photography. Mind you resale of the 6D/II isn't bad, making the RP within reach for the benefits, and you can bring all your EF glass along with that adapter.
Q3: (About that APS-C market)... "So potential buyers might be considering the SL2 or an M50... why would they pay 3x more for this than one of those cameras?"
A3: "The simple answer is image quality... more light... shallower depth of field... cleaner images... gives you access to both the RF range of lenses and Canon's EF range of lenses if you do want to go down that adapted route... if you're willing to pay for cost and it comes down to lenses again"
My thoughts: Nailed it. True across the board here. However, there are plenty of bargain lenses that adapter will take, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM come to mind which the EOS RP will excel at portraiture with. Not to mention that RF 35mm again.
Q4: "What's the impact we think for high end crop sensor cameras now that it doesn't cost too much to get into full frame, is that going to impact the high end APS-C market."
A4. "I think it has to. I mean um, Canon has clearly um, as a lot of people say, oh it's missing a lot of features, the video is terrible... Canon has done it's best to not tread completely on the likes of the 80D, the 7DII, but, I think as soon as you're looking at one of the really high end APS-C, the Nikon D500.. it's hard not to look at the fact you can buy a Sony A7III or a Z6 for not that much more money, again factor in lenses... but it's going to make life hard, they're really going to have to offer something special... but this particular model I don't see as that much of a worry because if you need the features those high end APS-C cameras offer it's (RP implied) probably not going to do it, that's not who this is for"
My thoughts: Yes and no. There is something to be said for the price point that's really hard to ignore, I think it is a worry. Richard's own point about image quality being a reason to upgrade from APS-C, at $1299 is an elephant in the room to use an elephant quote. That EOS RP is going to deliver some impressive bang for buck when paired with an RF 35, EF 50/1.8 or 85/1.8, but, it is watered down in features due to it's market level (entry) so it's not going to take out say a 7DII for sports, the RP is just not meant for that so there's some points on the board here to worry about, and some points on the board here to not worry about. The A7III and Z6 don't take EF lenses without an adapter themselves, which by the way, is not cheap last I checked so the argument about spending a bit more only counts to those new to the system or jumping from another non-EF mount and how much more money depending what you plan to do with it, IE portraits, you can get away with all you need with an RP, RF 35, EF 85, for less than a Z6 or A7III with equivalent offerings by a long shot. Those with EF-S or APS-C bodies on the other hand, which is a large user base, that EOS RP delivers native performance with that adapter for EF glass, at a cheap price point. That's a lot to worry about as it makes high end APS-C for Canon, largely a sports-only affair in my opinion.
Q5: (Along those same lines comparing the X-T3) "Comparing this camera (RP) to the X-T3 would you recommend going full frame over the crop, of course taking in lenses into account"
A5. Depends what you're going to use it for. X-T3 is a lovely camera to use, a lot of controls, really strong autofocus, beautiful JPEG color, X-T3 shoots fantastic video... this (RP) is a much more basic model, but it does have a full frame sensor which gives the potential for more image quality... But for instance if you shoot landscapes, you can pull up the shadows more before the noise starts to show as this isn't the most modern chip.. again lenses, the Fuji lineup is extensive.
My thoughts: Yup. Depends what you're going to use it for. However, a word about Fuji and their extensive lens lineup. Expensive. The EOS RP is not expensive, it's the cheapest full frame at launch. Some of Fuji's lenses alone approach the cost of the EOS RP. The total cost of the system should be taken into account particularly when comparing Fuji. You can even go up to an R (not RP) with EF (even L) glass adapted and still be in the same price point as a Fuji X-T3 system with comparable Fuji lenses, but, at superior equivalence with RF and EF full frame glass.
Q6: Philosophical question; ...thoughts about how Canon made their entrance (into the EOS R series)
A6: Canon will see the sales figures... they'll know if they should've tried to go RP or split the difference... R and RP are distinctly different... For me the thing that makes whole system strange is they're (Canon) very focused on enthusiastic professional lenses... Once we see more bodies and lenses, then the system will make a bit more sense.
My thoughts: Yes, the R and RP are very different. However, the RP makes plenty of sense right now this side of a Pro-R or more RF glass as I like to think of the RP as a sort of 6DIII. You can attach any EF lens to the RP via that adapter and you get facial tracking, eye AF, wider AF coverage, -5EV sensitivity and no autofocus micro adjustment. All your EF glass suddenly behaves much better on the EOS RP. Not to mention DIGIC8 gives better metering and auto white balance, or both, depending if you're coming from a 6D or 6DII. Many more points I could make here, but it makes a lot of sense even this side of the grass, especially if you have EF/S glass already.
Q7: Comments about video... 1080P with EF-S lenses... How does that work?
A7: Video spec on this camera is not it's most exciting feature... It's a really nice camera to use just for shooting stills... For video, this not particularly a strong camera... it's kind of a bit of a mess and has rolling shutter and you don't get the lovely dual pixel auto focus in the 4k mode. I really wouldn't consider this as a video camera. Resounding no for video.
My thoughts: I'll pull a page from a commonly overused defense of Canon's video feature set in mid and low range models and say, 1080P is just fine for most average joe's. Dual Pixel AF, Canon color, and digital IS are going to be a huge benefit to folks that are likely looking at this camera due to price point / market level (IE novice) that will never, ever consider using say DaVinci Resolve or other video editor to fix camera shake or colors, which are as big a deal as 4K as good 1080P you can argue is superior to bad 4K (I'd argue it is more important). I like 4K too, but the reality is most YouTube videos that are shot 4K, get down sampled to 1080P. Burn to a DVD? 720P. Many TVs are still 1080P. Blu-Rays? 1080P. 4K is great, great, but I personally still shoot most things 1080P even though I have a 16-35L which looks great in 4K on my R, cropped. Go figure. It's not as strong an argument as you think for average joe or even an enthusiast. And the video pro? He/she is probably not in this price range. They're going to spend more and get more. It's (video spec) largely mute at this price point in my book.
Q8: "I think we've talked a lot who this camera is not for which is a bit unfair, we could address a question here about who it is for and we had a reader suggest that this might be a really good travel camera and they were asking if it allowed for in camera RAW processing..."
A8: I think that's exactly who this camera is for, it's for someone who would like to get more into photography... really into photography from their smartphone but wants better quality.. Maybe as a family camera... If you mount the 24-105 f/4, kinda expensive, not that small, useful range, reasonably fast aperture... 24-240 lens is on it's way... nice interface if you don't know what all that stuff means (about RAW processing)
My thoughts: Yes, I think they have talked a lot about who (they think) it's not for, and hence why I'm writing this because I have an opinion otherwise. I have to disagree here across the board. Travel camera? Point and Shoot or APS-C (or smaller) mirror less system, Canon or otherwise. Family camera? Errr, same thing, maybe a traditional DSLR Rebel. Heck, a good smartphone, keep it, they do take good pictures these days. Consider upgrading your smartphone even. I don't enjoy saying that. But, truth is those smartphones are conquering the masses for good reason. They've gotten a lot better and do travel/family stuff pretty well.
Q9: How does this (EOS RP) square up against Sony's mirrorless range... A7 III, maybe the A7 II?"
A9: "I find it hard to imagine two cameras being more different, but they have been priced relatively similarly... depends really what you're trying to do with it. The A7 II is sort of a feature packed camera, certainly if I was thinking video I'd go A7 II, but for instance this will shoot it's eye-AF system in continuous autofocus (EOS RP) which the A7 II didn't, that's a feature that came with the A7 III... if your needs are 18 separate AF modes, I think it's worthy spending the extra money and getting the A7 III, it's AF is generally better, it's color is more attractive, it's menu system has been reworked... if your needs are at all ambitious, probably Sony, maybe have a look at the Nikon Z6, but at that point you're probably not an EOS RP customer. It's more if you're looking at a Rebel or a way of getting into the RF system, maybe this is the camera for you, but maybe if you're thinking, oh, can I shoot a bit of sports, can I do a bit of portraiture, can I shoot a bit of video, I probably wouldn't be looking at this camera (EOS RP).... Yeah makes sense."
My thoughts: Wait, for video do the A7II? A7 II is even less video capable than the EOS RP! It doesn't have dual pixel AF, a fully articulating screen, touch and drag (or touchscreen at all), doesn't have as pleasing of colors. Considering this camera is more capable than the 6D (original), and is only $1299, with an adapter thrown in right now, and that camera (6D) could do a little bit of sports at 4.5FPS (which the RP does 5FPS, and a wider AF coverage), quite a lot of portraiture (the RP has eye-AF and no AFMA), but not really video, and this can (do video ala DPAF and that fully articulating screen), I have to disagree with the little bit of this and that, that it can't. That doesn't make any sense. This is a camera, a full frame one, at $1299.
Q10: The development of this system (EOS R) and the implication for EF-M.. is this good news, or bad news that Canon's stepping into full frame.
A10 Certainly ominous... We'll just have to wait and see. As soon as you add a lens on, it's hard for this to compete with the carry everywhere convenience of the EF-M... There is room for both to co-exist"
My thoughts: Yes, yes and yes. For the first time in this whole post, I can 100% agree without a reservation with the answer given. The world is not falling for the EOS M / EF-M system. It's a different beast that co-exists with the EOS R system (in my mind).
Most of the video's key points are transcribed below for read only folks that didn't bother to watch it:
From the intro: "Cheapest FF launched ever launched... but rises significantly after you add the lens"
Q1: "Why didn't Canon make an affordable RF kit lens to match?"
A1: "What we have is the EF adapted (EF 24-105 IS STM + adapter mounted to the RP is being held by Richard)... there's no real RF lens that's a particular good match for this body... there really isn't a cheap option... you forget how big that's going to be (the EF 24-105) with the adapter"
My thoughts: I'll agree with Richard that the recently announced RF 24-240 will make a great travel lens (he mentioned it but I didn't transcribe to shorten this already long post), however, Canon Japan is bundling the RP with the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM, and for good reason. 35mm is "the" street lens, and many point and shoots ala X100 series employ a single fixed 35mm lens; lots of folks are fine just with that. The RF 35mm, at $499 MSRP and less than 300g, and available now, this would seem to be a logical lens to suggest but wasn't mentioned even once during the video. At $1299 (body) and $499 (RF 35mm lens), you're still clocking in at less weight and less bulk than the Nikon Z6 and Z 35mm f/1.8 by comparison and less cost than the Z6 body alone, not to mention a presently free bundled EF/S adapter.
Size weight comparison below of the Z6+Z35 vs RP+RF35:
http://j.mp/2Sj6YiN
Q2: About upgrading from 6D and 6DII owners: "What would you say to them if they were looking to upgrade to something like this (EOS RP pointed at)"
A2: "I'd say probably not to be honest. Unless there are some RF lenses you really really want, this is essentially a downgrade... this is a much much more entry level camera... it makes much more sense if you're starting from APS-C"
My thoughts: I'd have to disagree here. I'll start with cheating by providing a generated comparison to the original 6D which isn't all encompassing, but it's a resource for this purpose...
https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/canon-rp-vs-canon-6d
The RP provides much wider AF coverage than the 6D or 6DII, has touch and drag AF (which the 6D/II lacks an AF joystick), more FPS than the 6D (but not the 6DII), more buffer than the 6D, DPAF video (vs 6D), smaller, lighter, gives you a seat at the RF table (for say that RF 35mm or 24-240), has 1/3 stop better ISO (than the 6D), 6MP more resolution than the 6D, has DIGIC8 which improves metering, auto white balance, has eye-AF, and facial tracking, does away with auto focus micro adjustment making for sharper photos especially at shallow depth of field, does -5EV (something neither the 6D or II do) for low light AF, 4K in some form (which neither do), can take EF-S glass with that adapter which neither can do, has better connectivity for syncing to your smartphone. Really, in my book, the RP is arguably the 6DII we should've had at $1299 and the size/weight. Where the 6D is going to give you better mileage is in slight dynamic range, for landscapes, but, mind you at the expense of both 6MP and RF glass which are just going to give you a lot more resolution so it's not a straight keep your 6D if you do landscapes. Vs the 6D II though, the 6DII gives you more FPS which is important for sports. But, it's hard to ignore eye-AF and facial tracking with that wider AF coverage for anyone who does portraits, or even family gatherings ala candid photography. Mind you resale of the 6D/II isn't bad, making the RP within reach for the benefits, and you can bring all your EF glass along with that adapter.
Q3: (About that APS-C market)... "So potential buyers might be considering the SL2 or an M50... why would they pay 3x more for this than one of those cameras?"
A3: "The simple answer is image quality... more light... shallower depth of field... cleaner images... gives you access to both the RF range of lenses and Canon's EF range of lenses if you do want to go down that adapted route... if you're willing to pay for cost and it comes down to lenses again"
My thoughts: Nailed it. True across the board here. However, there are plenty of bargain lenses that adapter will take, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM come to mind which the EOS RP will excel at portraiture with. Not to mention that RF 35mm again.
Q4: "What's the impact we think for high end crop sensor cameras now that it doesn't cost too much to get into full frame, is that going to impact the high end APS-C market."
A4. "I think it has to. I mean um, Canon has clearly um, as a lot of people say, oh it's missing a lot of features, the video is terrible... Canon has done it's best to not tread completely on the likes of the 80D, the 7DII, but, I think as soon as you're looking at one of the really high end APS-C, the Nikon D500.. it's hard not to look at the fact you can buy a Sony A7III or a Z6 for not that much more money, again factor in lenses... but it's going to make life hard, they're really going to have to offer something special... but this particular model I don't see as that much of a worry because if you need the features those high end APS-C cameras offer it's (RP implied) probably not going to do it, that's not who this is for"
My thoughts: Yes and no. There is something to be said for the price point that's really hard to ignore, I think it is a worry. Richard's own point about image quality being a reason to upgrade from APS-C, at $1299 is an elephant in the room to use an elephant quote. That EOS RP is going to deliver some impressive bang for buck when paired with an RF 35, EF 50/1.8 or 85/1.8, but, it is watered down in features due to it's market level (entry) so it's not going to take out say a 7DII for sports, the RP is just not meant for that so there's some points on the board here to worry about, and some points on the board here to not worry about. The A7III and Z6 don't take EF lenses without an adapter themselves, which by the way, is not cheap last I checked so the argument about spending a bit more only counts to those new to the system or jumping from another non-EF mount and how much more money depending what you plan to do with it, IE portraits, you can get away with all you need with an RP, RF 35, EF 85, for less than a Z6 or A7III with equivalent offerings by a long shot. Those with EF-S or APS-C bodies on the other hand, which is a large user base, that EOS RP delivers native performance with that adapter for EF glass, at a cheap price point. That's a lot to worry about as it makes high end APS-C for Canon, largely a sports-only affair in my opinion.
Q5: (Along those same lines comparing the X-T3) "Comparing this camera (RP) to the X-T3 would you recommend going full frame over the crop, of course taking in lenses into account"
A5. Depends what you're going to use it for. X-T3 is a lovely camera to use, a lot of controls, really strong autofocus, beautiful JPEG color, X-T3 shoots fantastic video... this (RP) is a much more basic model, but it does have a full frame sensor which gives the potential for more image quality... But for instance if you shoot landscapes, you can pull up the shadows more before the noise starts to show as this isn't the most modern chip.. again lenses, the Fuji lineup is extensive.
My thoughts: Yup. Depends what you're going to use it for. However, a word about Fuji and their extensive lens lineup. Expensive. The EOS RP is not expensive, it's the cheapest full frame at launch. Some of Fuji's lenses alone approach the cost of the EOS RP. The total cost of the system should be taken into account particularly when comparing Fuji. You can even go up to an R (not RP) with EF (even L) glass adapted and still be in the same price point as a Fuji X-T3 system with comparable Fuji lenses, but, at superior equivalence with RF and EF full frame glass.
Q6: Philosophical question; ...thoughts about how Canon made their entrance (into the EOS R series)
A6: Canon will see the sales figures... they'll know if they should've tried to go RP or split the difference... R and RP are distinctly different... For me the thing that makes whole system strange is they're (Canon) very focused on enthusiastic professional lenses... Once we see more bodies and lenses, then the system will make a bit more sense.
My thoughts: Yes, the R and RP are very different. However, the RP makes plenty of sense right now this side of a Pro-R or more RF glass as I like to think of the RP as a sort of 6DIII. You can attach any EF lens to the RP via that adapter and you get facial tracking, eye AF, wider AF coverage, -5EV sensitivity and no autofocus micro adjustment. All your EF glass suddenly behaves much better on the EOS RP. Not to mention DIGIC8 gives better metering and auto white balance, or both, depending if you're coming from a 6D or 6DII. Many more points I could make here, but it makes a lot of sense even this side of the grass, especially if you have EF/S glass already.
Q7: Comments about video... 1080P with EF-S lenses... How does that work?
A7: Video spec on this camera is not it's most exciting feature... It's a really nice camera to use just for shooting stills... For video, this not particularly a strong camera... it's kind of a bit of a mess and has rolling shutter and you don't get the lovely dual pixel auto focus in the 4k mode. I really wouldn't consider this as a video camera. Resounding no for video.
My thoughts: I'll pull a page from a commonly overused defense of Canon's video feature set in mid and low range models and say, 1080P is just fine for most average joe's. Dual Pixel AF, Canon color, and digital IS are going to be a huge benefit to folks that are likely looking at this camera due to price point / market level (IE novice) that will never, ever consider using say DaVinci Resolve or other video editor to fix camera shake or colors, which are as big a deal as 4K as good 1080P you can argue is superior to bad 4K (I'd argue it is more important). I like 4K too, but the reality is most YouTube videos that are shot 4K, get down sampled to 1080P. Burn to a DVD? 720P. Many TVs are still 1080P. Blu-Rays? 1080P. 4K is great, great, but I personally still shoot most things 1080P even though I have a 16-35L which looks great in 4K on my R, cropped. Go figure. It's not as strong an argument as you think for average joe or even an enthusiast. And the video pro? He/she is probably not in this price range. They're going to spend more and get more. It's (video spec) largely mute at this price point in my book.
Q8: "I think we've talked a lot who this camera is not for which is a bit unfair, we could address a question here about who it is for and we had a reader suggest that this might be a really good travel camera and they were asking if it allowed for in camera RAW processing..."
A8: I think that's exactly who this camera is for, it's for someone who would like to get more into photography... really into photography from their smartphone but wants better quality.. Maybe as a family camera... If you mount the 24-105 f/4, kinda expensive, not that small, useful range, reasonably fast aperture... 24-240 lens is on it's way... nice interface if you don't know what all that stuff means (about RAW processing)
My thoughts: Yes, I think they have talked a lot about who (they think) it's not for, and hence why I'm writing this because I have an opinion otherwise. I have to disagree here across the board. Travel camera? Point and Shoot or APS-C (or smaller) mirror less system, Canon or otherwise. Family camera? Errr, same thing, maybe a traditional DSLR Rebel. Heck, a good smartphone, keep it, they do take good pictures these days. Consider upgrading your smartphone even. I don't enjoy saying that. But, truth is those smartphones are conquering the masses for good reason. They've gotten a lot better and do travel/family stuff pretty well.
Q9: How does this (EOS RP) square up against Sony's mirrorless range... A7 III, maybe the A7 II?"
A9: "I find it hard to imagine two cameras being more different, but they have been priced relatively similarly... depends really what you're trying to do with it. The A7 II is sort of a feature packed camera, certainly if I was thinking video I'd go A7 II, but for instance this will shoot it's eye-AF system in continuous autofocus (EOS RP) which the A7 II didn't, that's a feature that came with the A7 III... if your needs are 18 separate AF modes, I think it's worthy spending the extra money and getting the A7 III, it's AF is generally better, it's color is more attractive, it's menu system has been reworked... if your needs are at all ambitious, probably Sony, maybe have a look at the Nikon Z6, but at that point you're probably not an EOS RP customer. It's more if you're looking at a Rebel or a way of getting into the RF system, maybe this is the camera for you, but maybe if you're thinking, oh, can I shoot a bit of sports, can I do a bit of portraiture, can I shoot a bit of video, I probably wouldn't be looking at this camera (EOS RP).... Yeah makes sense."
My thoughts: Wait, for video do the A7II? A7 II is even less video capable than the EOS RP! It doesn't have dual pixel AF, a fully articulating screen, touch and drag (or touchscreen at all), doesn't have as pleasing of colors. Considering this camera is more capable than the 6D (original), and is only $1299, with an adapter thrown in right now, and that camera (6D) could do a little bit of sports at 4.5FPS (which the RP does 5FPS, and a wider AF coverage), quite a lot of portraiture (the RP has eye-AF and no AFMA), but not really video, and this can (do video ala DPAF and that fully articulating screen), I have to disagree with the little bit of this and that, that it can't. That doesn't make any sense. This is a camera, a full frame one, at $1299.
Q10: The development of this system (EOS R) and the implication for EF-M.. is this good news, or bad news that Canon's stepping into full frame.
A10 Certainly ominous... We'll just have to wait and see. As soon as you add a lens on, it's hard for this to compete with the carry everywhere convenience of the EF-M... There is room for both to co-exist"
My thoughts: Yes, yes and yes. For the first time in this whole post, I can 100% agree without a reservation with the answer given. The world is not falling for the EOS M / EF-M system. It's a different beast that co-exists with the EOS R system (in my mind).
Last edited:
