Personally, I'm waiting for Rxs (Rx + Rs in one body) or is it excess?
Upvote
0
Fair points, let me elaborate on some benefits I see using the RP (so extensible to the R): With the availability of in-viewfinder 3 color histograms, I have very few rejects due to lighting problems as a result of not only exposure simulation but also the histograms. The Fv mode makes managing exposure so much simpler, I never need to go to M or other modes, just play around with the 4 variables. When switching to manual focus (very rare as the DPAF is so reliable) I get an outline of all the in-focus elements in the picture as I rotate the focus ring. The programmable ring is a great feature on RF lenses, I mostly use it for exposure compensation. No mirror slap, I have taken great pictures at 1/10 with the EF IS lenses using adapters, on the 5D using the same lenses I need to use a monopod or more to avoid the tremor of the mirror. Discrete photography mode, hiding the read screen by reversing it, I have full control and some review capabilities in the EVF, making the camera less conscious in low light situations. Some of these points may not be important to other photographers but they are far from trivial to me.Well put. For some people, the R is good enough to buy, for others not. It is good enough for some use cases, but not all. A lot depends on what your use cases are, and what equipment you have. I have a 5DIV and that is enough for me for right now.
I never need to go to M or other modes, just play around with the 4 variables.
Exposures are made up of two independent variables.What four variables, exposures are made up of three variables aren't they?
Please elaborate.Exposures are made up of two independent variables.
"Autoexposure" introduces two more variables, but they are codependent.
Amazing that people still don’t have a clue about equivalence. Not a dig at you, just a rebuttal against your very misplaced comment, I’d hate people to think it’s true.shooting in FF means stopping the lens down another stop or so just to have a little margin in focus, which means more lighting, or higher ISO to compensate. Not a good set of trade offs.
What four variables, exposures are made up of three variables aren't they?
Yes and that is my point. How is moving four things easier than moving three things? Exposure compensation is moving one, or more, of the other three.the 'Fv' mode lets you tweak shutter speed, aperture, ISO and exposure compensation. So 4 knobs for what people call an 'exposure triangle'.
Yes and that is my point. How is moving four things easier than moving three things?
Very excited about the potential new bodies but right now I'm desperate to hear more about the release of the new RF 15-35mm. It's gone very quiet on this subject. Will this still be released in July?
Yes correct but you access Shutter, Aperture, Exposure Correction and ISO in Fv mode. Any of the Shutter, Aperture and ISO can be set to automatic (indicated by a white bar underlining that variable) or fixed at a set value, you do that by moving the control of that variable to the selector. Exposure Correction can also be assigned to the selector, or changed using e.g. the new ring on RF lenses. The RP seems to often need exposure correction, mostly towards overexposure relative to the automatic value(s). Live histogram in the viewfinder is a precious ally in effecting such corrections.Exposures are made up of two independent variables.
"Autoexposure" introduces two more variables, but they are codependent.
Hassles and problems.... ok. Some might say benefits and joysI gave up on Canon and moved on. Canon doesn't get it, and simply wants to give the market what canon wants, when they want to. While I'm quite happy with my C300-2, I sold off my still camera bodies and moved to Fuji XT3. Totally and utterly don't care about or per se like using "full frame" because its just not worth the extra hassle and problems. S35 / APS C is perfectly good and a real sweet spot especially for video purposes. shooting in FF means stopping the lens down another stop or so just to have a little margin in focus, which means more lighting, or higher ISO to compensate. Not a good set of trade offs.
I think the consensus is that professional photographers are already shooting with cameras that fulfill their basic needs (like a 5D III or IV, or a 1DX mark ii), so why rush? They're invested in the Canon ecosystem already, with loads of L glass that will work perfectly on an R body when they want to get one, so what's the hurry? I don't think people really want to switch brands as much as we talk about it happening. It's a pain in the butt to do so.
Exactly, what is everyone's rush? I'm using a 5Div, have all L glass and I'm perfectly happy. Image quality is all I need, honestly the glass is what delivers the images for me, unless you can consistently put up a large print and say oh that's from this camera system or this camera system, which today is almost impossible than what are we really waiting for? What should I switch to another camera system for?
If you're looking for a reason to set off dopamine to get excited about buying something new and setting off your neurotransmitters temporarily then by all means spend your money.
Most important thing for me is that this system delivers what I need and that's all I need. I'm less of a gear head and use my tools to get the job done.