Hence why I put "invest" in inverted commasIf you are not a pro then you are not investing in anything.
These are depreciating assets.
If you are a pro then switching systems is a business decision.
Upvote
0
Hence why I put "invest" in inverted commasIf you are not a pro then you are not investing in anything.
These are depreciating assets.
If you are a pro then switching systems is a business decision.
I never understand any kind of brand hater, or any other kind of hater, come to that....Then why buy from them at all?
I never really understood brand haters who buy the brand they hate
The M series is consumer oriented. It’s a mature system, with a good selection of lenses for its target market. Canon doesn’t care if you personallyBut doing what I've done requires stability and long term commitment from the manufacturer. That's what we're not seeing from Canon WRT the M system. Also I forgot to mention that in the last two years, I replaced my 20 year old trinity with a new F/4 trinity and my 100 macro with the latest and greatest. I'm getting old and want to lighten my load.
The size of the M series lenses is possible because of the smaller image circle and smaller throat diameter of the mount. You’re not ever going to see RF lenses that small.I own an R5 and have used an RP. The RP is about as small as I want to go. On the other hand, I like the size of the M system lenses.
Buyer-seller relationships are inherently adversarial. See The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert AxelrodThen why buy from them at all?
I never really understood brand haters who buy the brand they hate
Then you must like Sony and Nikon. You’re not a customer of theirs, and the enemy of your enemy is your friend.Buyer-seller relationships are inherently adversarial. See The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod
Yep, you're right. Canon has done it better than anybody else over the last 40 years. Whoever designed the EOS communications protocol did a superb job, especially regarding extensibility.The M series is consumer oriented. It’s a mature system, with a good selection of lenses for its target market. Canon doesn’t care if you personallyinvest inbuy some M bodies and lenses. What sort of commitment are you looking for?
You listed a bunch of L series lenses you’ve bought, all of those can be easily adapted to any Canon mirrorless body. That’s a form of commitment.
The size of the M series lenses is possible because of the smaller image circle and smaller throat diameter of the mount. You’re not ever going to see RF lenses that small.
Honestly, it sounds like by ‘commitment to the M series’ you mean that you want Canon to make a camera just for you – a bigger body than any other M to date that works with the small EF-M lenses.
I know quite a few people who, when they found themselves unable to carry their large FF gear, switched to Fuji and were very happy. Maybe you should consider ‘investing’ in Fuji.
Appealing subjects are easy to get nice shots of. A phone will take a fine photo of a sunset in Venice. Higher level equipment shines where things are more challenging - smaller, further, poorer light, faster action.Funny how when many folks talk about travel they want the smaller sensor, less advanced camera with them yet when I travel it's to locales with spectacular beauty, interesting vistas...you get the idea. That's why I travel with the best gear I have, weight be damned. Unless of course it has been decided and discussed with the powers that be which state no one shall lag behind composing, framing or seeking particular light and therefore take the damn picture with the ipohne 12.
What lenses are missing that you'd want? Genuine question. And how many of them would be substantially smaller than an adapted EF equivalent?Concerning the M system, I own an M5 and 4 lenses. I've pretty much given up on them. But why buy a small camera so I can put on an adapter and a big lens? I've decided to just suffer along. Buying an F/4 trinity was a big help and the R6 seems about the right size.
The RF f/4 Trinity zoom is a fantastic set! I especially love the 70-200. My favorite version of all 6 70-200 L lenses I have owned over the years.Yep, you're right. Canon has done it better than anybody else over the last 40 years. Whoever designed the EOS communications protocol did a superb job, especially regarding extensibility.
Concerning the M system, I own an M5 and 4 lenses. I've pretty much given up on them. But why buy a small camera so I can put on an adapter and a big lens? I've decided to just suffer along. Buying an F/4 trinity was a big help and the R6 seems about the right size.
Regarding whether "investing" in a hobby makes sense, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Why given up? They have the same capabilities as the day you bought them, and those are solid capabilities. I have an M6 and all 8 EF-M lenses. I use them occasionally, which has been my pattern since buying them as a smaller kit to supplement to my FF kit.Concerning the M system, I own an M5 and 4 lenses. I've pretty much given up on them. But why buy a small camera so I can put on an adapter and a big lens?
I want what Olympus has. Neuro suggested I switch to Fuji. I'm much more likely to buy an OM-1 (or two) and their trinity of lenses.What lenses are missing that you'd want? Genuine question. And how many of them would be substantially smaller than an adapted EF equivalent?
Agreed. When I travel somewhere I know I’ll want to take photos, I bring the gear that will deliver the best IQ available to me – FF camera with appropriate lenses.Appealing subjects are easy to get nice shots of. A phone will take a fine photo of a sunset in Venice. Higher level equipment shines where things are more challenging - smaller, further, poorer light, faster action.
I agree. I also have 2 R6s and an R5 and the RP (at least in terms of the grip) is about as small as I would prefer to go, though they could still trim here and there. Small light RF lenses would really be welcome. The RF 50 and 16 are both a good start, but smaller is better.I own an R5 and have used an RP. The RP is about as small as I want to go. On the other hand, I like the size of the M system lenses.
Perhaps I should put the RP next to an R5 or R6. I doubt it would change your mind, however, the size difference between the RP and other RF cameras is really significant. If you think the RP is big and bulky, the other RF cameras are outright monsters in comparison. The point I was trying to make was that if Canon really wanted to replace M with RF they're already not that far off with the RP. Doing APS-C just isn't that necessary to get a small camera.It's funny because you posted this to suggest these are similar and I see something completely different. Where you see two compact cameras I see one compact (actually I think that's pretty bulky compared to my M6ii) and one quite large and bulky one. Where you see a slight difference in size, I see a big trade off between camera gear and bag space for things like food and water. You even chose one of the most compact RF lenses to make your point. Show us the M series with 11-22 next to the R series with 15-35 and you may start to see the problem. In this scenario just the lenses will be 21oz difference, and I can tell you that holding 21oz at arms length for any amount of time is not fun.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that everyone needs small and compact cameras, it'd just be nice that you don't try to kill off the stuff other people need because you don't need it.
Me too!I want what Olympus has. Neuro suggested I switch to Fuji. I'm much more likely to buy an OM-1 (or two) and their trinity of lenses.