diness
Lives in
United States
Joined on
Jan 28, 2003
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |  |
| De Goede Reede during a september sunset. by Trickydesign from Almost Overprocessed -- An Editing Challenge | Boston Sunrise Reflections by Charles Pfeil from Old tech | 919 at speed. by 1AllanR from Alphabet soup II. Letter Z for “Zoom Zoom" (sports cars) | Christmas-0929 by vbuhay from Christmas. | Early ascent, Pyrenees by Dan Paris from Into the sun | Azure Kingfisher by Denjw from A big year - birds 2020 |
John 2001: A bit unfair since the R6 and R5 will split their vote. Similar for Nikon Z6ii an Z7ii
It doesn't really make it unfair. Some may think the R5 is the best and others the R6, that's ok. Plus, it really doesn't matter what camera comes out on top, it's just a poll on an internet site. It'll be ok.
panther fan: DPreview really has a hard time deciding what is a fast aperture. Sometimes FF F6.3 is fast, sometimes it is not? Sometimes FF F11 is slow, sometimes it is acceptable... Sometimes M43 F4.5 is fast, sometimes it's not
Doesn’t it depend on what focal length it is and what other options are out there? When have they said f6.3 is fast?
thx1138: Well maybe they should have released a 1000 f/11 DO, it makes a infinite amount more sense than the 600 f/11. The 800 f/11 makes a tiny bit of sense but the 600 is pointless IMO.
@xeppelin
Yeah, the 100-400 with extender is a good solution. But remember, that's a $2400 lens, plus an extender that costs money, all that with an adapter, which makes that solution far more expensive and much larger and heavier as well.
The Silver Nemesis: I still believe f/11 is just too much - as a compromise. Yes, these two are light weight and the idea behind is sound (“telephoto for the masses”), and, again, probably the quality is matching expectations, but that aperture is like a wall. Even 7.1 is questionable from my perspective - although initial reviews for that lens (100-500) are mostly positive.
Yes, but consider the $12,000 800mm is only f5.6 and weighs a whopping 9.9 pounds. f7.1 wouldn't have taken a whole lot of that weight off. Would it be nice to have f8? Sure. Do I have any idea how much bigger and more expensive that lens would have been? Not really, I'm not a lens designer.
mferencz: Canon has been hitting home runs with new lenses. They whiffed with these. Sure they might have some hobbyists interested here, but for any moderate level birder f/11 is hard to work with.
It may be, but considering that Canon's other 800mm offering is $12,000 and Nikon's is $16,000... I would be willing to go with f11 and pay only $900.
It’s a great price, but Canons 85mm f1.8 can be had used at around this price too. If it was me, I would buy a used canon for sure.
mattz10: 680 grams is really something heavy for this consumer target.
and no GPS bult-in.
no go.
Kind of, yes. The lenses can’t beat physics so they will be a certain size. The body is just about the perfect size for the lenses IMO
23 fotos: R6 .. just a poor mans version of the R5. Are there other cameras that have better specs for less? I would say yes. Will I get it? No, will wait for the R5 to drop in price via 2nd hand market.
What camera has better specs for less?
Benjixwb: I'm debating between this and the Canon R. I'm an enthusiastic looking to grow. Been shooting with my EOS 70D for years and I would love to upgrade. I would like sharper photos with less noise. I don't think I will be shooting too much videos so that isn't my main concern. Would the R be a better choice over the R6? I think the R5 would be overkill for me.
Do you want cheaper, more resolution and don’t shoot action? Get the R. Do you need excellent AF, are shooting action or movement? Get the R6
Relaxed: Feels like it’s overpriced by $500... as was the original R...
Why? What does the A9ii do that this camera doesn’t?
mattz10: 680 grams is really something heavy for this consumer target.
and no GPS bult-in.
no go.
Huh? 680 grams is not heavy for a full frame camera... this will fit the RF lenses quite nicely.
Oleg Ivanovskiy: I do not buy this "R5 is new 5D, R6 is new 6D" parallel also. EOS 6D never (never!) costed 2500 USD. The first was 2099, the second was 1999 at the start. I feel like R6 is 500 bucks overpriced for what it is. Remember that EF - RF adapter is sold separately. That's another 99.
Just to be clear: I do not insist that they should sell it cheaper. But Canon could have kept more features from R5 for that money. Both cameras share the same platform, same CPU power, these "locked" features demotivate so much...
I don’t buy it either, but for the opposite reason as you... the R6 is far closer to the R5 than the 6d was to the 5d series. Same AF system, same fps, joystick, same back wheel, etc etc. compared to the 6d, I think the price is justified. Do I hope the price goes down a bit soon so I can buy it? Of course I do! But that doesn’t mean it’s the wrong starting price.
I'm definitely guessing this one is some sort of travel zoom. They have done their f2.8 trinity, so I highly doubt it's f2.8. It doesn't look long enough to be some kind of 100-400 or the like. My guess is it's something like a 24-105 or 24-120 or something like that with an f4 max aperture or possibly variable aperture. With how pricey Sony's 24-105 is (yes, I know it's good), I think it could sell well if they price it right.
Tester_v: What do you expect? It is a Tamron. Tamron= crap 90% of the time.
@Arnold Weber - I agree! and the G2 lenses were the ones i was talking about. i tried the first versions and they were good, but the G2 lenses were excellent!
Jonathan F/2: Tempting, but I'm not fond of lenses that extend. I'd rather shoot the 70-200mm f/4 lens fixed barrel and use fast primes when I need more light gathering and compact size. Though I like the Tamron 17-28mm 2.8 for being fixed barrel.
Also Lenscoat really needs to make neoprene covers for these Tamron E-mount zoom lenses. The plastic exterior barrels seem prone to scratching.
If you don’t like extending zooms, what do you do for a standard zoom? 24-***?
Tester_v: What do you expect? It is a Tamron. Tamron= crap 90% of the time.
You mean like their 28-75 for Sony FE that was out of stock for months because it sold so well? Or their 35mm f1.4 that was the best 35mm Af lens out there? Or there 24-70 and 70-200 G2 lenses that were nearly as good as their first party counterparts at substantially lower cost? Sounds like you haven’t owned a recent Tamron
worldaccordingtojim: This camera is total BS, the childish game they are playing leaking tiny pieces of information alone tells you that. These are not going to be actual video modes, these are going be just like the Samsung smartphones, they do absurd frame rates at very low quality for a few seconds, just to make headlines when in reality it isn't useful. The Sony RX100 has been doing this for years, it does 4k but for 5 minutes, it does 960fps for a few seconds.
Haven’t mentioned the sensor size??? We all know this is a full frame camera
worldaccordingtojim: This camera is total BS, the childish game they are playing leaking tiny pieces of information alone tells you that. These are not going to be actual video modes, these are going be just like the Samsung smartphones, they do absurd frame rates at very low quality for a few seconds, just to make headlines when in reality it isn't useful. The Sony RX100 has been doing this for years, it does 4k but for 5 minutes, it does 960fps for a few seconds.
Wow, you know a lot about this camera...
Mariano Pacifico: Conspiracy against dSLRs
Mariano, have you ever used a mirrorless camera? They aren't forcing anyone to buy them. There are plenty of EF lenses that will continue to work. They do realize that mirrorless is the future and that they need to develop lots of RF lenses for the new set of users that are out there.
joenj: From a Canon FF point of view: I hope we get this year several Art primes for the R system like the 28mm, 105mm, 135mm and more...
@Krisak you mean like the tiny 45mm f2.8 that sigma literally just made for Sony E-mount?