Canon EOS RP Officially Discontinued: End of an Era for the Budget Full-Frame

[ScreensMatter]

There is a lot of great used FF gear. But the implication that the only way into photography is through a new FF camera just isnt true. If anything that's gatekeeping. Id wager the vast majority of folks who started photography with a digital camera did not start on full frame.

I don't care about digital sensor sizes. But I am a true believer of 6x6 negative film . What else has there really been to recommend on the low end for a new mirrorless camera? Around the same price class there has been the A6100, Z50, R50, E-M10 Mark IV and G-97. None of them are bad cameras, most of them use old tech. All the systems have enough lenses to get you by. I don't really know what to say about the current stat of all the systems except RF, they seem a bit on life support.

 

[esglord]

I did the same, a local camera store had the option to rent the R+RP+RF50L for free and that made me realize the R wasn't €1000 better than the RP. So I bought an RP + EF100L macro lens and sold my EF100-non-L macro.

I'm not sure what features in an R8II would make me replace my R8, it still works great for everything I do. Flash with ES is the bare minimum, but not enough

Funny, I also picked up a used EF100L and a 50mm in 2020 to do newborn photos when my daughter was born during Covid lockdown. Yeah, I don’t think the R8 really needs any new bells and whistles, at least for photography.

 

[justaCanonuser]

RP -> RiP

 

[justaCanonuser]

...I am a true believer of 6x6 negative film .

I'm in your club, I still love to use my New Mamiya 6 system. It is also the most beautiful camera in my collection, of course that's my very personal taste (I'm a Bauhaus and original Braun design fan). Some years ago I realized that I was stalked by an attractive young woman in a museum, and observing her a while I found that she isn't particularly interested in me old man but the Mamiya I carried with me. Well, I am happily married, so this finding relaxed me a bit...

 

[ctk]

I don't care about digital sensor sizes. But I am a true believer of 6x6 negative film . What else has there really been to recommend on the low end for a new mirrorless camera? Around the same price class there has been the A6100, Z50, R50, E-M10 Mark IV and G-97. None of them are bad cameras, most of them use old tech. All the systems have enough lenses to get you by. I don't really know what to say about the current stat of all the systems except RF, they seem a bit on life support.

IMO theres not much point buying a brand new camera in any segment unless you want the latest and greatest or need serious warranty/service coverage. Someone looking for a lower priced camera should absolutely go used.

Plus even with the arbitrary "new mirrorless" limitation there's nothing any of those cameras can't do thats within the realm of what most low budget photographers need. Used cameras are the new entry level camera.

 

[AJ]

I am currently looking at macro lenses: the decision is between the EF 100mm F2.8 L and the RF 100mm F2.8. Do I really need the magnification of 1,4:1? Is it worth a premium of about 400-600 €? I don't think so because I am not that much into macro... only thing with the EF... I need an adapter once again... grrrr

That decision is looming for me as well. I have a 20-year-old Tamron 90/2.8 Di macro that is dying. I love this lens dearly but the focus ring is becoming very stiff and the AF motor is struggling to move it. My requirements for a new lens: good AF, stabilization, 1:1 magnification.

For me, the RF 100 is beyond my budget.

For me the contenders are:

EF 100/2.8 L. These are readily available on the used market for a reasonable price. Has hybrid IS. However, the adapter is needed. One the one hand the adapter is not a big deal, but on the other hand it'd be nice to go without.

RF 85/2 plus something like a NiSi dual-element close-up filter. The 85/2 alone does 2:1 which is sufficient most of the time, and if I want to get closer then I could add the front filter. Like the EF 100 is is not an all-in-one solution and involves messing around with accessories.

 

[P-visie]

RF 85/2 plus something like a NiSi dual-element close-up filter. The 85/2 alone does 2:1 which is sufficient most of the time, and if I want to get closer then I could add the front filter. Like the EF 100 is is not an all-in-one solution and involves messing around with accessories.

Users of the RF 85mm have mentioned the slow AF of the RF 85mm.

 

[ctk]

That decision is looming for me as well. I have a 20-year-old Tamron 90/2.8 Di macro that is dying. I love this lens dearly but the focus ring is becoming very stiff and the AF motor is struggling to move it. My requirements for a new lens: good AF, stabilization, 1:1 magnification.

For me, the RF 100 is beyond my budget.

For me the contenders are:

EF 100/2.8 L. These are readily available on the used market for a reasonable price. Has hybrid IS. However, the adapter is needed. One the one hand the adapter is not a big deal, but on the other hand it'd be nice to go without.

RF 85/2 plus something like a NiSi dual-element close-up filter. The 85/2 alone does 2:1 which is sufficient most of the time, and if I want to get closer then I could add the front filter. Like the EF 100 is is not an all-in-one solution and involves messing around with accessories.

RF on a budget = you should have an EF-RF adapter in your bag anyway.

 

[DocInfoSci]

RF on a budget = you should have an EF-RF adapter in your bag anyway.

I run an R3 and and R6, each with a control ring adapter. Check my sig for the EF lenses and accessories. I can state that I enjoy remarkable success with all of them. RF has an advantage in terms of AF speed for USM -variety and VCM lenses, from my limited testing, and in some cases there's a sharpness edge, but nothing I'd pay $1000+ extra for unless my mortgage depended on the outcome. Turn on DLO for sooc improvements (I use max DLO, but the fastest things I shoot are sprinting deer and galloping horses). Especially for Macro I really appreciate the manual focus with the EF lenses as it stays put and can't be damaged when the camera sleeps, gets turned off, undergoes a battery swap, etc. If you're on the fence it's worth hauling your camera to the local store and testing both EF and RF equivalents. Stuff like the 100mm macro should still be in good supply around the place, and right now Canon / vendors tend to run early summer specials.

 

[koenkooi]

[..] RF 85/2 plus something like a NiSi dual-element close-up filter. The 85/2 alone does 2:1 which is sufficient most of the time, and if I want to get closer then I could add the front filter. Like the EF 100 is is not an all-in-one solution and involves messing around with accessories.

It does half-macro, so 1:2. It's quite a good lens, albeit with slow AF.

 

[ctk]

I run an R3 and and R6, each with a control ring adapter. Check my sig for the EF lenses and accessories. I can state that I enjoy remarkable success with all of them. RF has an advantage in terms of AF speed for USM -variety and VCM lenses, from my limited testing, and in some cases there's a sharpness edge, but nothing I'd pay $1000+ extra for unless my mortgage depended on the outcome. Turn on DLO for sooc improvements (I use max DLO, but the fastest things I shoot are sprinting deer and galloping horses). Especially for Macro I really appreciate the manual focus with the EF lenses as it stays put and can't be damaged when the camera sleeps, gets turned off, undergoes a battery swap, etc. If you're on the fence it's worth hauling your camera to the local store and testing both EF and RF equivalents. Stuff like the 100mm macro should still be in good supply around the place, and right now Canon / vendors tend to run early summer specials.

RF really breathed new life into a lot of EF glass, particularly fast primes that struggled to nail focus. Most extreme examples of this were the old Sigma EX 1.4 primes; no more issues with alignment. The 50 still wasn't great wide open but from F/2 onward it was solid. EF glass generally works way better on RF bodies than the EF bodies they were made for.

 

[AJ]

It does half-macro, so 1:2. It's quite a good lens, albeit with slow AF.

1:2. Right. That's what I meant to say. Thanks.

As for focusing, I was reading Bryan's review at TDP and he says that short focus adjustments are relatively quick but longer adjustments are slower due to long focus throw (3 full turns to go from infinity to min. focus distance). Dustin Abbott doesn't seem to like the AF very much and says it's prone to hunting, which is surprising given it's a native R mount lens. Others say it has okay performance.

I may rent one for a day and see for myself.