Don't think Canon ever said, "A sexy solution that doesn't require adapters." Canon said, "Elegant" I believe. Never said no adapters. Seems the solution is seamless and elegant, to me, with zero loss of IQ. Your lenses aren't obsolete. If you think so, you can mail them to me. I'll take those obsolete and worthless lenses. I'll even pay shipping. $20 sound okay?Troll Rant #428
I am still waiting on the full frame body that had a sexy genius solution that didnt require adapters? Remember that quote? I am mystified ppl are buying the r and rp. Are you that bored or wealthy? Wow. I had mine a week (R) and sent it back. It's junk, a turd. Waiting on the 5dsr m2 at this point, to see how bad they blunder that one, because recent developments since the R dropped indicates that yes, indeed, they will blunder it. And people will lick that dogpuke up.
A head-scratcher? Expect to be wildly underwhelmed. I mean, they just canceled the 7d. How stupid. So what piece of underwhelming non-video capable market-segmented crap will they come out with? Probably a mirrorless lite, with 1fps, using a 5 year old DLSR sensor, yet again, with 3 desired features added BUT 20 crucial mid-level features removed. There will be clear indications of innovative patents with absolutely no follow through on the actual market.
Gosh, I use to be so in love with my 5d, 5dIII, and now my 5DSr and my L lenses, but now I strongly dislike Canon, and I feel betrayed by them, and I feel stuck with a bunch of expensive obsolete lenses. Adapters, my *$$. I may as well get a competitor body and use an adapter of theirs with my L lenses, because Canon seems pretty clueless to me. Mainly I just come on here to 1) troll the fanboys 2) see what other companies are doing, like zeiss zx1, leica q2, fuji MF, panasonic full frame, and 3) hope for a repeat miracle of the 1987 EOS EF innovation that put everyone 20 years behind. What happened to that company, Canon? Bring that company back.
Basically, I want the EOS 1987 of today; if I am going to spend about $40k on a body and full RF lens system, then it better come with a vengeance like the 1987 EOS system, and I JUST DO NOT SEE THEM AS COMPARABLE.
Still, they are no Nikon. I mean, imagine the delusion set you have to carry around to buy into the Z. Wow. And I thought I felt stupid for pre-buying an R. Or imagine seeing the flange diameters of the z and RF and considering the tiny eensy E-mount on the Sony. You would have to combine all 3 brands to cherry-pick a decently-featured stills camera. This is pathetic, considering the cameras cost between $1500 and $5000 or so, depending.
Most of these camera companies are idiots anyway by cramming video and stills together. Why can't people see that when you do this, nobody truly wins?Video guys lose, stills guy loses. (Anytime I ever shot video, I rented a c300 or equivalent at the time. Right tool for the right job.) A stills camera built JUST FOR stills would always be a better camera than these do-it-alls consumers demand today. Yet I have never seen an affordable stills-only camera. (e.g. a still camera that had a blistering 100fps burst of 100mp RAW). How about a camera that shoots a SQUARE or a CIRCLE, thereby using the absolute best part of the lens glass optics instead of an idiotic long rectangle at 3:2 ratio? Why am I such a bad person for wanting these things in a multi-thousand dollar camera?