Moving into the RF system... while still using the M system

[Larry Rexley]

As a hard-core M system user (see my gear list) for a while I've had in the back of my mind swapping out one of my M6ii bodies for an R7, for stills birding, and video with CLOG3 and IBIS.

Last week I couldn't pass up B&H Photo's big discounts of $400 off the R7+18-150mm kit lens & $200 off the RF 24mm f1.8... and so I jumped into the RF world.

My most used lenses on the M6ii are the 18-150mm for daytime video shooting of trains, and the Viltrox 23mm f1.4 & Sigma 16mm f1.4 C for low light night video and photography.

The RF 24mm f1.8 lens has favorable reviews, and looked to me close enough to the EF-M 22mm f2 or 23mm f1.4 so that I could use it as a primary APS-C night lens. That turned out to be correct: it's sharper than those lenses especially in the corners and has better flare control and contrast, plus it has IS and near-macro! It can replace a fast EF-M 23mm f1.4 lens and for me also the EF-M 28mm f3.5 macro.

I did a rigorous night out shooting CLOG3 railroad video with the new R7 last week (see link below) --- and am very, very happy with the experience and results. It's an M6ii on steroids.... as far as the sensor goes, the results I'm getting are almost indistinguishable from M6ii results for pure IQ, perhaps a touch sharper.

CLOG3 4k downsampled video is a step up from M6ii video. No more blown highlights and better control of tone curves and color balance and saturation. IBIS with Auto-leveling is fabulous... it's going to be hard to go back and shoot with the M6ii not on a tripod.

My copy of the RF-S 18-150 is just as sharp as my copy of the EF-M 18-150 from f5 and darker, and wide open it has no decentering and is sharp to the corners, unlike my EF-M copy which is very slightly decentered. Happy camper there, I'll be eBaying the EF-M version.

What I don't have on RF-S is an affordable super-wide zoom like the EF-M 11-22mm lens, but there's chatter than it could be coming soon. I used to own the EF-S 10-18mm, but it wasn't nearly as sharp as the EF-M 11-22mm and I don't want to go backwards.

I've already adapted my EF and EF-S telephotos (Sigma 150-600mm C, Rokinon 135mm f2, EF-S 55-250 IS STM, 1.4x teleconverter) so my needs are met for the R7 on the telephoto end.

I'd like to see an affordable 12mm f2 lens (manual focus is OK) or an autofocus 16mm f1.4. I can't go from the Sigma 16mm f1.4 on M to the RF 16mm f2.8 --- two stops is too much to lose in low light.

As for the R7 itself, I'm surprised to find that the magnification of the R7's EVF is about 20% bigger than the M6ii --- which is great for me, it's easier on the eyes for seeing data and compose images in the EVF. Love the longer battery life. Love the ability to shoot cropped or oversampled 4k video. Love having the hot shoe on top of the camera for a video mike AND being able to use the EVF (no can do with the M6ii). I prefer the tilting rear screen of the M6ii but the R7's screen has other advantages and it's fine too.

I like the R7's 'quirky' raised rear command dial, and for me the control/focus ring on the lens is fine for me to use as a 'third dial' like the aperture ring in the old days. And the R7's AF is killer good --- it already handles fast-moving trains better than any way I could focus with the M6ii. (Sorry R2, a fast-moving train straight at you is one of the few cases M6ii spot focus doesn't do well!)

I'm one who's gone on record many times saying that the M6ii is big enough and that I love its small size --- I've been using it for years with no issues. But after shooting with the larger R7 body for only a few days --- you know what --- I get it now, it IS easier to handle and hold and use all the controls, especially with the bigger teles. The R7 is shorter in height with its compact built-in EVF than the M6ii is with the external EVF mounted --- and the EVF was something that always kind of hung me up trying to pack the camera bag.

I'm curious what are other folks' experiences moving from the M to RF system, or using both? I see a lot of familiar names of folks posting here who posted a lot on the M forums. What are your experiences now with RF and M - what did/do you use each system for?

*******

Here's a link to a night video shot entirely with the M6ii, with the EF-M Viltrox 23mm 1.4, Sigma 16mm f1.4, and Canon 32mm f1.4 primes for night work, and mostly the EF-M 18-150 for day work:

And a link with a video shot in similar night conditions (the later part of the video at night) with the R7 and the RF 24mm f1.8 prime for night work and the RF-S 18-150 for day work. This night video handled shooting directly into train and car headlights much better, and the footage is generally cleaner than, the M6ii's low light video in areas where the level of light was nearly the same, even though I was shooting with an f1.8 lens on the R7 and f1.4 lenses on the M6ii.

 

[MAC]

As a hard-core M system user (see my gear list) for a while I've had in the back of my mind swapping out one of my M6ii bodies for an R7, for stills birding, and video with CLOG3 and IBIS.

Last week I couldn't pass up B&H Photo's big discounts of $400 off the R7+18-150mm kit lens & $200 off the RF 24mm f1.8... and so I jumped into the RF world.

My most used lenses on the M6ii are the 18-150mm for daytime video shooting of trains, and the Viltrox 23mm f1.4 & Sigma 16mm f1.4 C for low light night video and photography.

The RF 24mm f1.8 lens has favorable reviews, and looked to me close enough to the EF-M 22mm f2 or 23mm f1.4 so that I could use it as a primary APS-C night lens. That turned out to be correct: it's sharper than those lenses especially in the corners and has better flare control and contrast, plus it has IS and near-macro! It can replace a fast EF-M 23mm f1.4 lens and for me also the EF-M 28mm f3.5 macro.

I did a rigorous night out shooting CLOG3 railroad video with the new R7 last week (see link below) --- and am very, very happy with the experience and results. It's an M6ii on steroids.... as far as the sensor goes, the results I'm getting are almost indistinguishable from M6ii results for pure IQ, perhaps a touch sharper.

CLOG3 4k downsampled video is a step up from M6ii video. No more blown highlights and better control of tone curves and color balance and saturation. IBIS with Auto-leveling is fabulous... it's going to be hard to go back and shoot with the M6ii not on a tripod.

My copy of the RF-S 18-150 is just as sharp as my copy of the EF-M 18-150 from f5 and darker, and wide open it has no decentering and is sharp to the corners, unlike my EF-M copy which is very slightly decentered. Happy camper there, I'll be eBaying the EF-M version.

What I don't have on RF-S is an affordable super-wide zoom like the EF-M 11-22mm lens, but there's chatter than it could be coming soon. I used to own the EF-S 10-18mm, but it wasn't nearly as sharp as the EF-M 11-22mm and I don't want to go backwards.

I've already adapted my EF and EF-S telephotos (Sigma 150-600mm C, Rokinon 135mm f2, EF-S 55-250 IS STM, 1.4x teleconverter) so my needs are met for the R7 on the telephoto end.

I'd like to see an affordable 12mm f2 lens (manual focus is OK) or an autofocus 16mm f1.4. I can't go from the Sigma 16mm f1.4 on M to the RF 16mm f2.8 --- two stops is too much to lose in low light.

As for the R7 itself, I'm surprised to find that the magnification of the R7's EVF is about 20% bigger than the M6ii --- which is great for me, it's easier on the eyes for seeing data and compose images in the EVF. Love the longer battery life. Love the ability to shoot cropped or oversampled 4k video. Love having the hot shoe on top of the camera for a video mike AND being able to use the EVF (no can do with the M6ii). I prefer the tilting rear screen of the M6ii but the R7's screen has other advantages and it's fine too.

I like the R7's 'quirky' raised rear command dial, and for me the control/focus ring on the lens is fine for me to use as a 'third dial' like the aperture ring in the old days. And the R7's AF is killer good --- it already handles fast-moving trains better than any way I could focus with the M6ii. (Sorry R2, a fast-moving train straight at you is one of the few cases M6ii spot focus doesn't do well!)

I'm one who's gone on record many times saying that the M6ii is big enough and that I love its small size --- I've been using it for years with no issues. But after shooting with the larger R7 body for only a few days --- you know what --- I get it now, it IS easier to handle and hold and use all the controls, especially with the bigger teles. The R7 is shorter in height with its compact built-in EVF than the M6ii is with the external EVF mounted --- and the EVF was something that always kind of hung me up trying to pack the camera bag.

I'm curious what are other folks' experiences moving from the M to RF system, or using both? I see a lot of familiar names of folks posting here who posted a lot on the M forums. What are your experiences now with RF and M - what did/do you use each system for?

*******

Here's a link to a night video shot entirely with the M6ii, with the EF-M Viltrox 23mm 1.4, Sigma 16mm f1.4, and Canon 32mm f1.4 primes for night work, and mostly the EF-M 18-150 for day work:

And a link with a video shot in similar night conditions (the later part of the video at night) with the R7 and the RF 24mm f1.8 prime for night work and the RF-S 18-150 for day work. This night video handled shooting directly into train and car headlights much better, and the footage is generally cleaner than, the M6ii's low light video in areas where the level of light was nearly the same, even though I was shooting with an f1.8 lens on the R7 and f1.4 lenses on the M6ii.

congrats Larry!

I'm an owner of both M6II and R8

I think R7 is a great camera for reach and birding and your use cases

 

[Ali]

Welcome! I also still have the M6II along with R5 and R50 but using it much less since I got the latter. To me the R5 was definitely too big to be a reasonable replacement. Even the R50, while diminutive for a DSLR style camera, feels large sometimes. But it’s light!

Glad to hear you’re liking the 18-150 (I do too) and the 24 f/1.8 (which I don’t have). I’m waiting for the 32mm f/1.4 equivalent, for RF-S.

Enjoy!

 

[Swerky]

Glad to read you’re satisfied with your gear! It’s true that a larger camera is more comfortable to use, and the R7 is still light and compact.
I’ll be modestly entering the R world myself with an R50 and 55-210 lens (new it’s available only with the 18-45 that I’ll sell or somehow find clean used separately), to complement my G1X Mark III. That way I can easily carry both without having to swap lenses. Sure there’s the one solution 18-150 but I lose the extra 60 at the long end, and more importantly the 24mm equivalent at the wide end. The G1X III also has the useful ND filter built in, leaf shutter and I got for it a polarising filter. A Raynox 250 is also on the way to use for macro.

--
Nothing to read here.

 

[RLight]

Hi Larry,

Welcome to the R forum. Feel free to stay a while, or hang around the M too.

I shoot family outings and pleasure.

The 28 pancake was what got me. It’s an alternative option for me pared with the R8, than the 22 is on the M6II.

The 16 pancake is also fierce. Notably they are both FF glass; the R7 will crop them obviously.

I don’t look up or down on folks who stay M or “convert”. There’s no right or wrong answer. Just options that more or less fit needs.

If a lens doesn’t exist in M that exists in RF, you should switch. If not? There’s no need, just want. You’re going 18-150, exists on both mounts. Be careful is my advice.

A system consists of its body and glass.

Consider what glass you use most on M is my advice. If it exists in RF, or better glass exists in RF? Convert. If not? Don’t. Just my 2 cents.

The 28 replaces the 22, if, you’re shooting an R8.

The 16 replaces the 11-22.

The 24-240 does not replace the 18-150, be careful there.

The 100-400 can replace a 55-200 though, oddly.

Questions? I’ll try to answer best I can.

Good light…

 

[Larry Rexley]

Really enjoying the R7. Took it out this morning birding, and the hit rate is so much higher with the Sigma 150-600mm C lens than it was with the M6ii. I'm using the AF settings in one of Duane Paton's videos (Australian Youtube wildlife shooter) which reduce or eliminate the focus 'pumping' that lens has with the R7.

All shots below are with the R7 and the Siggy 150-600 C lens, processed using DxO Photolab 6

The Moon shot was done with the Siggy + a 2x teleconverter I made from Promaster Canon EF 36mm extension tube fitted with vintage Kiron 2x MC7 teleconverter optics, so it was taken at 1200mm f12.6 - it's the the first hand-held Moon photo I've shot with a telephoto lens that is I feel almost as good as what I've gotten with a proper telescope. The extension tube's contacts are pass-through so the camera is not aware there are TC 2x optics in the path and the EXIF data doesn't reflect the 2x multiplier on the focal length and aperture values.

 

[R2D2]

Beautiful! Love #2 of the juvie’ Tricolored Heron. We don’t see those up here.

Big congrats on the new kit! (LOL, how could I ever fault someone for moving to a camera I’ve been using myself?!! :-D ). The R7 is extremely capable.

Enjoy Larry, and keep posting samples!

R2

ps. Was wondering if you have ever considered a Ninja recorder for video. Word has it that it can be transformative.

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

 

[RLight]

I'm sincerely considering selling my RF off (R8 and non RF-L that is), and keeping my M gear, instead of the other way around.

.

The fun factor, is in fact impaired by the increased size. The RF mount itself, holds back the system.

.

Don't be in any hurry to ditch the M Larry. The R system certainly has class leading AF, video capabilities. But, but, it's impaired by glass options and size. Canon could resolve some of this by either releasing a mid-range 50mm, as the EF-M 32mm suits that bill for the M, or releasing more crop RF-S glass. But, those haven't happened yet, and possibly never will. And even if they do those? a 55mm mount is bigger than a 47mm mount. Interesting times.

.

I'll be dragging my M out of the closet and shooting with it again. Go figure.

 

[m100]

I'm sincerely considering selling my RF off (R8 and non RF-L that is), and keeping my M gear, instead of the other way around.

.

The fun factor, is in fact impaired by the increased size. The RF mount itself, holds back the system.

.

Don't be in any hurry to ditch the M Larry. The R system certainly has class leading AF, video capabilities. But, but, it's impaired by glass options and size. Canon could resolve some of this by either releasing a mid-range 50mm, as the EF-M 32mm suits that bill for the M, or releasing more crop RF-S glass. But, those haven't happened yet, and possibly never will. And even if they do those? a 55mm mount is bigger than a 47mm mount. Interesting times.

.

I'll be dragging my M out of the closet and shooting with it again. Go figure.

The larger mount on my RF 18-150mm may be the reason it did not break when it fell hard on a wood floor about 4 feet mounted on my R50 lens first.

I am thinking a EF-m 18-150mm on a M50 would have broke the mount.

Not hard to repair though.

The RF 18-150mm is plenty enough reason to keep a R50.

Mine has very good IS.

It works well with in camera focus stacking on the R50. The picture size changes little when focus changes.

The RF 16mm changes the picture size a lot when focus changes and strange things happen when doing close up in camera focus stacking with the 16mm STM on my R50.

So RF 18-150mm is my product photography lens of choice.

RF 18-150mm is great for the car show too.

I keep it in my gear list because I am not going to put stuff in my gear list that mostly stays in a dry box.

Have I gone off topic again ?

--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.

 

[MAC]

I'm sincerely considering selling my RF off (R8 and non RF-L that is), and keeping my M gear, instead of the other way around.

.

The fun factor, is in fact impaired by the increased size. The RF mount itself, holds back the system.

.

Don't be in any hurry to ditch the M Larry. The R system certainly has class leading AF, video capabilities. But, but, it's impaired by glass options and size. Canon could resolve some of this by either releasing a mid-range 50mm, as the EF-M 32mm suits that bill for the M, or releasing more crop RF-S glass. But, those haven't happened yet, and possibly never will. And even if they do those? a 55mm mount is bigger than a 47mm mount. Interesting times.

.

I'll be dragging my M out of the closet and shooting with it again. Go figure.

makes no sense...

the RF 28 on R8 is knocking it out of the park for you

 

[m100]

As a hard-core M system user (see my gear list) for a while I've had in the back of my mind swapping out one of my M6ii bodies for an R7, for stills birding, and video with CLOG3 and IBIS.

Last week I couldn't pass up B&H Photo's big discounts of $400 off the R7+18-150mm kit lens & $200 off the RF 24mm f1.8... and so I jumped into the RF world.

My most used lenses on the M6ii are the 18-150mm for daytime video shooting of trains, and the Viltrox 23mm f1.4 & Sigma 16mm f1.4 C for low light night video and photography.

The RF 24mm f1.8 lens has favorable reviews, and looked to me close enough to the EF-M 22mm f2 or 23mm f1.4 so that I could use it as a primary APS-C night lens. That turned out to be correct: it's sharper than those lenses especially in the corners and has better flare control and contrast, plus it has IS and near-macro! It can replace a fast EF-M 23mm f1.4 lens and for me also the EF-M 28mm f3.5 macro.

I did a rigorous night out shooting CLOG3 railroad video with the new R7 last week (see link below) --- and am very, very happy with the experience and results. It's an M6ii on steroids.... as far as the sensor goes, the results I'm getting are almost indistinguishable from M6ii results for pure IQ, perhaps a touch sharper.

CLOG3 4k downsampled video is a step up from M6ii video. No more blown highlights and better control of tone curves and color balance and saturation. IBIS with Auto-leveling is fabulous... it's going to be hard to go back and shoot with the M6ii not on a tripod.

My copy of the RF-S 18-150 is just as sharp as my copy of the EF-M 18-150 from f5 and darker, and wide open it has no decentering and is sharp to the corners, unlike my EF-M copy which is very slightly decentered. Happy camper there, I'll be eBaying the EF-M version.

What I don't have on RF-S is an affordable super-wide zoom like the EF-M 11-22mm lens, but there's chatter than it could be coming soon. I used to own the EF-S 10-18mm, but it wasn't nearly as sharp as the EF-M 11-22mm and I don't want to go backwards.

I've already adapted my EF and EF-S telephotos (Sigma 150-600mm C, Rokinon 135mm f2, EF-S 55-250 IS STM, 1.4x teleconverter) so my needs are met for the R7 on the telephoto end.

I'd like to see an affordable 12mm f2 lens (manual focus is OK) or an autofocus 16mm f1.4. I can't go from the Sigma 16mm f1.4 on M to the RF 16mm f2.8 --- two stops is too much to lose in low light.

As for the R7 itself, I'm surprised to find that the magnification of the R7's EVF is about 20% bigger than the M6ii --- which is great for me, it's easier on the eyes for seeing data and compose images in the EVF. Love the longer battery life. Love the ability to shoot cropped or oversampled 4k video. Love having the hot shoe on top of the camera for a video mike AND being able to use the EVF (no can do with the M6ii). I prefer the tilting rear screen of the M6ii but the R7's screen has other advantages and it's fine too.

I like the R7's 'quirky' raised rear command dial, and for me the control/focus ring on the lens is fine for me to use as a 'third dial' like the aperture ring in the old days. And the R7's AF is killer good --- it already handles fast-moving trains better than any way I could focus with the M6ii. (Sorry R2, a fast-moving train straight at you is one of the few cases M6ii spot focus doesn't do well!)

I'm one who's gone on record many times saying that the M6ii is big enough and that I love its small size --- I've been using it for years with no issues. But after shooting with the larger R7 body for only a few days --- you know what --- I get it now, it IS easier to handle and hold and use all the controls, especially with the bigger teles. The R7 is shorter in height with its compact built-in EVF than the M6ii is with the external EVF mounted --- and the EVF was something that always kind of hung me up trying to pack the camera bag.

I'm curious what are other folks' experiences moving from the M to RF system, or using both? I see a lot of familiar names of folks posting here who posted a lot on the M forums. What are your experiences now with RF and M - what did/do you use each system for?

*******

Here's a link to a night video shot entirely with the M6ii, with the EF-M Viltrox 23mm 1.4, Sigma 16mm f1.4, and Canon 32mm f1.4 primes for night work, and mostly the EF-M 18-150 for day work:

And a link with a video shot in similar night conditions (the later part of the video at night) with the R7 and the RF 24mm f1.8 prime for night work and the RF-S 18-150 for day work. This night video handled shooting directly into train and car headlights much better, and the footage is generally cleaner than, the M6ii's low light video in areas where the level of light was nearly the same, even though I was shooting with an f1.8 lens on the R7 and f1.4 lenses on the M6ii.

Seems like there are more and better photos on the M forum.

People on the M forum are proud to show the great photo they took with a camera and lens that cost less than $1000.

R forum members that have lenses that cost several thousands of dollars better post good shots.

--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.

 

[RLight]

I'm sincerely considering selling my RF off (R8 and non RF-L that is), and keeping my M gear, instead of the other way around.

.

The fun factor, is in fact impaired by the increased size. The RF mount itself, holds back the system.

.

Don't be in any hurry to ditch the M Larry. The R system certainly has class leading AF, video capabilities. But, but, it's impaired by glass options and size. Canon could resolve some of this by either releasing a mid-range 50mm, as the EF-M 32mm suits that bill for the M, or releasing more crop RF-S glass. But, those haven't happened yet, and possibly never will. And even if they do those? a 55mm mount is bigger than a 47mm mount. Interesting times.

.

I'll be dragging my M out of the closet and shooting with it again. Go figure.

makes no sense...

the RF 28 on R8 is knocking it out of the park for you

There's no doubt the R8 and 28 are stronger in terms of IQ, absolutely. But not by a lot actually. Also, there's a measure of "fun" that you don't get to see/feel through images I post. The R8 and non-L RF's are fun-er than former attempts by Canon in the RF mount (by a large margin btw), but, but, it fails to capture the M's measure of fun. That's a hard one to swallow. I've had the R8 for 2 months now, and I can tell you that although lenses like the 16mm, 28mm, 24-50mm and 100-400mm close the gap, what you don't see is I've been taking some of my recent downtime to process shots I've taken right before I got the R8; the M6 II with say a 22, 11-22, 32, they absolutely hang with the R8, and in cases exceed it, and do so with more "fun".

What's got some gravity is video quality. That, the R8 leaves the M6 II in the dust on. Oversampled 4K, stomps on 1080.

It's a hard one MAC. I'm in no hurry here obviously as I'm past the return period on this stuff, but I'm going to revisit the M. I'm going to say Canon has failed here where I shouldn't be considering other brands and platforms, but, I am.

Trouble is everything is a tradeoff. Sony A7C II, Nikon Z30, R50, A6700, Fuji, you name it.

 

[MAC]

I'm sincerely considering selling my RF off (R8 and non RF-L that is), and keeping my M gear, instead of the other way around.

.

The fun factor, is in fact impaired by the increased size. The RF mount itself, holds back the system.

.

Don't be in any hurry to ditch the M Larry. The R system certainly has class leading AF, video capabilities. But, but, it's impaired by glass options and size. Canon could resolve some of this by either releasing a mid-range 50mm, as the EF-M 32mm suits that bill for the M, or releasing more crop RF-S glass. But, those haven't happened yet, and possibly never will. And even if they do those? a 55mm mount is bigger than a 47mm mount. Interesting times.

.

I'll be dragging my M out of the closet and shooting with it again. Go figure.

makes no sense...

the RF 28 on R8 is knocking it out of the park for you

There's no doubt the R8 and 28 are stronger in terms of IQ, absolutely. But not by a lot actually. Also, there's a measure of "fun" that you don't get to see/feel through images I post. The R8 and non-L RF's are fun-er than former attempts by Canon in the RF mount (by a large margin btw), but, but, it fails to capture the M's measure of fun. That's a hard one to swallow. I've had the R8 for 2 months now, and I can tell you that although lenses like the 16mm, 28mm, 24-50mm and 100-400mm close the gap, what you don't see is I've been taking some of my recent downtime to process shots I've taken right before I got the R8; the M6 II with say a 22, 11-22, 32, they absolutely hang with the R8, and in cases exceed it, and do so with more "fun".

What's got some gravity is video quality. That, the R8 leaves the M6 II in the dust on. Oversampled 4K, stomps on 1080.

It's a hard one MAC. I'm in no hurry here obviously as I'm past the return period on this stuff, but I'm going to revisit the M. I'm going to say Canon has failed here where I shouldn't be considering other brands and platforms, but, I am.

Trouble is everything is a tradeoff. Sony A7C II, Nikon Z30, R50, A6700, Fuji, you name it.

the fun factor for me is using the back button to flip into eye focus and using 20 fps

 

[Larry Rexley]

I'm sincerely considering selling my RF off (R8 and non RF-L that is), and keeping my M gear, instead of the other way around.

.

The fun factor, is in fact impaired by the increased size. The RF mount itself, holds back the system.

.

Don't be in any hurry to ditch the M Larry. The R system certainly has class leading AF, video capabilities. But, but, it's impaired by glass options and size. Canon could resolve some of this by either releasing a mid-range 50mm, as the EF-M 32mm suits that bill for the M, or releasing more crop RF-S glass. But, those haven't happened yet, and possibly never will. And even if they do those? a 55mm mount is bigger than a 47mm mount. Interesting times.

I can't disagree with you there. The M system is a great complement to the R system, if you want the features that are only offered on the R system like iBIS, 4:2:2 4k downsampled video, access to R lenses, etc.

I've been able to fill out the R lens system already in a few weeks better than I thought I'd be able to. The Rf 24mm f1.8 macro turns out to be a great lens, better optically than any 22 or 23 on the M system (but it is WAY bigger than the EF-M 22mm, obviously, there goes the fun factor). That replaces for me the EF-M 22mm f2, Viltrox 23mm f1.4, and EF-M 28mm macro (although the RF lens is only half life size, not 1:1, it's good enough for me).

I just got the manual focus Laowa 15mm f2 Zero-D 'Dreamer' lens in RF mount off eBay for $400... in just a couple days it has knocked my socks off.... good at f2, very good and f2.8, and excellent at f4 on down. Depth of field is so deep that even at f2 just set to the infinity mark and you're good from 10 feet to infinity! That replaces for me the fast wide end just-as-sharp Rokinon 12mm f2, and both are great astro lenses. Plus the Laowa is actually a FF lens and is super-wide and still sharp on a FF body, which I see in my future...

I went momentarily insane and bought the Canon RF 14-35mm L refurbished from Canon for $1170.... before it even arrived I regretted that. Almost thankfully, it turned out to be slightly decentered and the rightmost 10% of the frame was fuzzy (unacceptable for an L lens), so back it went to my relief. WAY too much to spend on a lens for me! I almost had heart palpatations just changing lenses in the field for fear I'd drop such an expensive lens.

While testing it though I did side-by side shots with the R7 + RF 14-35mm at 14mm against the M6ii with the EF-M 11-22 shot at 14mm. Astonishingly, the 11-22 was cleaner and sharper right to the edges of the frame than the RF L lens... it wasn't even close. The 11-22 is just a spectacular wide zoom and I really hope it's one of the next lenses to be ported to RF-S.

The RF 50mm f1.8 is on sale for $99 at Canon refurb, that was kind of a no-brainer. Reviews indicate it's slightly sharper in the corners wide open than the EF version was, and also has better build quality. From experience I know the EF 50mm f1.8 ii that I had was spectacularly sharp from f4 on down, so this should be a nice prime to have. I know it's not going to even be in the ballpark sharp as the EF-M 32mm f1.4 lens, but I don't use that focal length very much, sadly, so the RF version should fulfill my occasional need.

 

[MAC]

I'm sincerely considering selling my RF off (R8 and non RF-L that is), and keeping my M gear, instead of the other way around.

.

The fun factor, is in fact impaired by the increased size. The RF mount itself, holds back the system.

.

Don't be in any hurry to ditch the M Larry. The R system certainly has class leading AF, video capabilities. But, but, it's impaired by glass options and size. Canon could resolve some of this by either releasing a mid-range 50mm, as the EF-M 32mm suits that bill for the M, or releasing more crop RF-S glass. But, those haven't happened yet, and possibly never will. And even if they do those? a 55mm mount is bigger than a 47mm mount. Interesting times.

I can't disagree with you there. The M system is a great complement to the R system, if you want the features that are only offered on the R system like iBIS, 4:2:2 4k downsampled video, access to R lenses, etc.

I've been able to fill out the R lens system already in a few weeks better than I thought I'd be able to. The Rf 24mm f1.8 macro turns out to be a great lens, better optically than any 22 or 23 on the M system (but it is WAY bigger than the EF-M 22mm, obviously, there goes the fun factor). That replaces for me the EF-M 22mm f2, Viltrox 23mm f1.4, and EF-M 28mm macro (although the RF lens is only half life size, not 1:1, it's good enough for me).

good to know Larry

I just got the manual focus Laowa 15mm f2 Zero-D 'Dreamer' lens in RF mount off eBay for $400... in just a couple days it has knocked my socks off.... good at f2, very good and f2.8, and excellent at f4 on down. Depth of field is so deep that even at f2 just set to the infinity mark and you're good from 10 feet to infinity! That replaces for me the fast wide end just-as-sharp Rokinon 12mm f2, and both are great astro lenses. Plus the Laowa is actually a FF lens and is super-wide and still sharp on a FF body, which I see in my future...

also good to know, thx

I went momentarily insane and bought the Canon RF 14-35mm L refurbished from Canon for $1170.... before it even arrived I regretted that. Almost thankfully, it turned out to be slightly decentered and the rightmost 10% of the frame was fuzzy (unacceptable for an L lens), so back it went to my relief. WAY too much to spend on a lens for me! I almost had heart palpatations just changing lenses in the field for fear I'd drop such an expensive lens.

thx for info

While testing it though I did side-by side shots with the R7 + RF 14-35mm at 14mm against the M6ii with the EF-M 11-22 shot at 14mm. Astonishingly, the 11-22 was cleaner and sharper right to the edges of the frame than the RF L lens... it wasn't even close. The 11-22 is just a spectacular wide zoom and I really hope it's one of the next lenses to be ported to RF-S.

The RF 50mm f1.8 is on sale for $99 at Canon refurb, that was kind of a no-brainer. Reviews indicate it's slightly sharper in the corners wide open than the EF version was, and also has better build quality. From experience I know the EF 50mm f1.8 ii that I had was spectacularly sharp from f4 on down, so this should be a nice prime to have. I know it's not going to even be in the ballpark sharp as the EF-M 32mm f1.4 lens, but I don't use that focal length very much, sadly, so the RF version should fulfill my occasional need.

f4 + works if that is your setting

 

[Larry Rexley]

What's got some gravity is video quality. That, the R8 leaves the M6 II in the dust on. Oversampled 4K, stomps on 1080.

Absolutely. It's not just the oversampled 4k, but the R7 can do CLOG3 and HDR PQ, and even the R10 can do HDR PQ. CLOG3 and HDR PQ are both 12-bit 4:2:2 video compared to 10-bit 4:2:0 video, so both those formats capture more 'color resolution' and a wider dynamic range than M series video.

The 4:2:2 format is closer to shooting 'RAW' video - you have more latitude in color correction and over- and under-exposure in post, and has more detail in both highlights and shadows. That being said, in very good lighting, if perfectly exposed in a situation where the lighting doesn't change (you don't pan to areas of different brightness) the standard video looks almost as good.

If you're serious about quality video, the extra R modes are a pretty big step up to more pro-like quality, although it does require more work in post to process and output to more standard video formats.

 

[CamerEyes]

Good choice with the R7! It's the second body I picked with my R6Mii.

My impression initially was its sensor is entirely the same as the one on the 90D / M6Ii. I was wrong. The noise level is better at high ISO. Overall detail retention is also 20-30% better.

I will recommend that you tinker with the AF, to suit your needs. It took me 2-3 months I finally configure mine according to what works for me. Also I recommend ProGrade V60 SD Cards, to overcome the buffer limitations of the camera, on both card slots.

 

[Larry Rexley]

On a recent railfanning shoot I was able to take 4k video of a new Amtrak 'heritage' edition locomotive with the R7, oversampled, using HDR PQ and the 18-150 kit lens.

I was able to export TIFF images directly from Adobe Premiere Pro, process them in DxO Photolab 6 including even a little bit of perspective correction, and get very sharp near-4k images. For railfanning I'm not following the 'cinematic' advice to shoot at twice your frame rate (which would be 1/60 s in my case) as I do want to freeze the motion of the train in each frame to be able to get stills off it, and to retain the detail.

Very happy with this result --- it's a dream come true as I feel I no longer need to also shoot stills at the same time as video. I wasn't able to get results anywhere near this clean from the M6 mark ii even with the sharpest lenses.


Canon R7, oversampled HDR PQ 4k video, 1/1000s, f8, ISO 200. exported as TIF and processed in DxO Photolab 6


Same image as above, additional processing in Adobe Photoshop using generative fill to remove the lead Amtrak locomotive (making 301 look like its leading), removing the poles, wires, concrete piece, and addition canvas space filling in detail below and to the left of the train

 

[RLight]

On a recent railfanning shoot I was able to take 4k video of a new Amtrak 'heritage' edition locomotive with the R7, oversampled, using HDR PQ and the 18-150 kit lens.

I was able to export TIFF images directly from Adobe Premiere Pro, process them in DxO Photolab 6 including even a little bit of perspective correction, and get very sharp near-4k images. For railfanning I'm not following the 'cinematic' advice to shoot at twice your frame rate (which would be 1/60 s in my case) as I do want to freeze the motion of the train in each frame to be able to get stills off it, and to retain the detail.

Very happy with this result --- it's a dream come true as I feel I no longer need to also shoot stills at the same time as video. I wasn't able to get results anywhere near this clean from the M6 mark ii even with the sharpest lenses.


Canon R7, oversampled HDR PQ 4k video, 1/1000s, f8, ISO 200. exported as TIF and processed in DxO Photolab 6


Same image as above, additional processing in Adobe Photoshop using generative fill to remove the lead Amtrak locomotive (making 301 look like its leading), removing the poles, wires, concrete piece, and addition canvas space filling in detail below and to the left of the train

Certainly a clean shot, however no disrespect to the R7, RAW burst on the M6 II with spot AF, could’ve, albeit you’d have to modify focal range for crop, but the R7 does not have over sampled footage like the R50/10/8. It’s subsampled, putting it on even keel with say RAW burst with the right AF.

Give eshutter a whirl on the R7; that, should give you superior results than frame extraction from 4k on an R7. Thought I’d point that out as the R7 does lineskip on 4K.

 

[Larry Rexley]

On a recent railfanning shoot I was able to take 4k video of a new Amtrak 'heritage' edition locomotive with the R7, oversampled, using HDR PQ and the 18-150 kit lens.

I was able to export TIFF images directly from Adobe Premiere Pro, process them in DxO Photolab 6 including even a little bit of perspective correction, and get very sharp near-4k images. For railfanning I'm not following the 'cinematic' advice to shoot at twice your frame rate (which would be 1/60 s in my case) as I do want to freeze the motion of the train in each frame to be able to get stills off it, and to retain the detail.

Very happy with this result --- it's a dream come true as I feel I no longer need to also shoot stills at the same time as video. I wasn't able to get results anywhere near this clean from the M6 mark ii even with the sharpest lenses.


Canon R7, oversampled HDR PQ 4k video, 1/1000s, f8, ISO 200. exported as TIF and processed in DxO Photolab 6


Same image as above, additional processing in Adobe Photoshop using generative fill to remove the lead Amtrak locomotive (making 301 look like its leading), removing the poles, wires, concrete piece, and addition canvas space filling in detail below and to the left of the train

Certainly a clean shot, however no disrespect to the R7, RAW burst on the M6 II with spot AF, could’ve, albeit you’d have to modify focal range for crop, but the R7 does not have over sampled footage like the R50/10/8. It’s subsampled, putting it on even keel with say RAW burst with the right AF.

Give eshutter a whirl on the R7; that, should give you superior results than frame extraction from 4k on an R7. Thought I’d point that out as the R7 does lineskip on 4K.

I shot the video using the R7's oversampled (Fine) 4k video. The R7 does do oversampled video at 30 fps, but at 60 fps it doesn't, only line skipped or cropped.

The point is that I'm taking 4k video by default to use in making high quality youtube channel videos, but I would also like to take some stills at the same time, to use for separate posts for the railfan sites and for sharp title slides for the video. M6ii video extractions were just 'OK' and did not look like high quality 'photos' --- the R7's video frame extractions are just good enough I think to quality as pretty decent photos in their own right. I think the R10 would also be capable of doing this.

If I have to shoot standard stills, it would mean I'd have to set up the video camera on a tripod, start it up, and then have a second camera shooting stills. I have done this but it is a lot of work and I lose the flexibility to jump back on my bicycle and chase the trains to the next spot.

As you say, both the M6ii and R7 are capable of taking vastly superior RAW stills than frame extraction from video. The tricky thing is how do you get both from a single camera.