Deal: Canon EOS RP body & mount adapter $1046 (Reg $1299)

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
3,156
684
Two reasons I would hesitate:
1. Dynamic Range is not great, definitely worse than the R.
2. The LCDs are low resolution and just look very grainy/ pixelated to me. A dealbreaker.

But if those things don’t bother you, the price is right.
The DR is worse than the camera a step above and much more expensive? CRIPPLING!
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
3,156
684
Bad times to live in germany: Not available in Germany. @ 1000 Bucks it would be really great to have one ... to reuse the old FD lenses, would like to see how the 4.0 17 performs and some (better) EF lenses I own.
Oh, there's been worse times to live there, you're good.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,093
1,641
Irving, Texas
Shitty LCD panels are a dealbreaker for me. If someone wants to try to check focus and what not on a grainy screen, let them have it.
Gotcha! I'm wondering which company I should switch to lately. Tired of the crappy screens when I manual focus. I run a whole lot of MF lenses (40+), so this is really important to me. Tired of waiting for Canon to get their act together. Canon's AF sucks too.
 
Last edited:

ronno

I'm New Here
Sep 8, 2019
13
15
Canonfanboy - You are not going to get a mirror less camera with good LCDs for $1k.
And Sony’s panels suck too. What you need is an EOS R or a Nikon Z camera.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,285
193
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
Oh, there's been worse times to live there, you're good.
Thats right, but there have been much better times - 1975 ... 1995 or so but germany has lived from it substance from the mid 1990s. During my PhD I had 1850 DM for a 50% part time job now I have 2500 EUR for a full time job but the effective difference in "buying power" is close to zero. A lot of things have become very expensive, the EOS RP is ~1500 with standard adapter while the nominal salary is lower compared to the US for similar jobs.
But I am good because I could easily pay the 1500 EUR but I am not willing to pay a premium just because I am living in the "wrong" country :) So this is a first world problem and it says to me: Use your M50 with 32mm and enjoy it!
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
598
217
I wonder why that is, if it is the same firmware? Sensor?
The AF system improvements are the same for both cameras, but of course each model will have its own 1.4 firmware update.
I guess that the R has more AF points (5,655 vs 4779) with slightly better sensitivity (-6EV vs -5EV) and faster frame rate (5fps vs 4fps), so it just works better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,094
271
The R and the RP haven't appealed to me since they came out. I am tempted to go fullframe mirrorless.
Both of these cameras gave me a feeling Canon were holding back. I was surprised the RP ended up being a lesser camera than the R.
Canon were bringing out great and expensive lens for the R but the second camera being a budget version of the first seemed an odd approach to me.
I found the frame rate on both cameras odd. Both have quite low FPS 5FPS and 4FPS, mirrorless gives great possibilities in this area.
It would be interesting if Canon are selling many of the R lens.
I'd have thought if you could afford the lens you could afford a more expensive camera.
I assume the next Canon R camera will remedy this situation.
It's just as well I don't run Canon. I'd kill the M series and make APS-C R cameras so that there is only one future mount
The M series seems to well outsell the R series by volume.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,093
1,641
Irving, Texas
The R and the RP haven't appealed to me since they came out. I am tempted to go fullframe mirrorless.
Both of these cameras gave me a feeling Canon were holding back. I was surprised the RP ended up being a lesser camera than the R.
Canon were bringing out great and expensive lens for the R but the second camera being a budget version of the first seemed an odd approach to me.
I found the frame rate on both cameras odd. Both have quite low FPS 5FPS and 4FPS, mirrorless gives great possibilities in this area.
It would be interesting if Canon are selling many of the R lens.
I'd have thought if you could afford the lens you could afford a more expensive camera.
I assume the next Canon R camera will remedy this situation.
It's just as well I don't run Canon. I'd kill the M series and make APS-C R cameras so that there is only one future mount
The M series seems to well outsell the R series by volume.
I believe the vast majority don't care about fast frame rates. Considering the first native lenses released were 35mm, 50mm, and the 28-70... wildlife and sports shooters were not the first target market. Yes, some in that market will complain "their camera and lenses" we're not released first. However, Canon probably decided that the first target market should be the most profitable part of the FF market... portrait, etc.

In my opinion, both cameras are budget priced in the FF realm.
 
Last edited:

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,094
271
I believe the vast majority don't care about fast frame rates. Considering the first native lenses released were 35mm, 50mm, and the 28-70... wildlife and sports shooters were not the first target market. Yes, some in that market will complain "their camera and lenses" we're not released first. However, Canon probably decided that the first target market should be the most profitable part of the FF market... portrait, etc.

In my opinion, both cameras are budget priced in the FF realm.
Yes I'd agree both are budget priced FF cameras and are spec'ed are such.
This just seems at odds with the lens which are high end and accordingly expensive.
It would be interesting to know which is most common use for full frame cameras.
I'd guess landscape is more popular than portrait.
That would be more the 15-35, 24-70, 24-105 type lens - of these only the 24-105 was in the first wave.
It makes me wonder the strategy behind the order the lens are being brought to the market.
Maybe it has more to do with ease of design and manufacture than a big strategy.

28-70mm F2 was probably a show what we can do type lens. I'd love to know if they actually sell very many of them.
24-70 is a much more flexible focal length.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,093
1,641
Irving, Texas
Yes I'd agree both are budget priced FF cameras and are spec'ed are such.
This just seems at odds with the lens which are high end and accordingly expensive.
It would be interesting to know which is most common use for full frame cameras.
I'd guess landscape is more popular than portrait.
That would be more the 15-35, 24-70, 24-105 type lens - of these only the 24-105 was in the first wave.
It makes me wonder the strategy behind the order the lens are being brought to the market.
Maybe it has more to do with ease of design and manufacture than a big strategy.

28-70mm F2 was probably a show what we can do type lens. I'd love to know if they actually sell very many of them.
24-70 is a much more flexible focal length.
I have a RF 28-70 and can say it is excellent for portraits. I also used my EF 35mm f/1.4 II for portraits, and did use the Rf 24-105 when I had it. 35,50, 70, 85, 105, 120, 135, 150, 200... I use all these for portraits.

While the RP and R are well priced, the R is far more than a budget camera for what I do, and I would not trade it for a 5D Mark IV.

 
Last edited:

Quirkz

EOS 80D
Oct 30, 2014
175
103
Yes I'd agree both are budget priced FF cameras and are spec'ed are such.
This just seems at odds with the lens which are high end and accordingly expensive.
It would be interesting to know which is most common use for full frame cameras.
I'd guess landscape is more popular than portrait.
That would be more the 15-35, 24-70, 24-105 type lens - of these only the 24-105 was in the first wave.
It makes me wonder the strategy behind the order the lens are being brought to the market.
Maybe it has more to do with ease of design and manufacture than a big strategy.

28-70mm F2 was probably a show what we can do type lens. I'd love to know if they actually sell very many of them.
24-70 is a much more flexible focal length.
I’d rather have a great lens and a 10 year old 5d2, than a modern camera with a shitty lens...

The ordering makes perfect sense to me. You invest in, and keep lenses a lot longer than bodies.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,397
840
You might be better of with an M6 Mark ii. The sensor in the RP is bit of a dinosaur that’s going to minimize some of the benefits of going full frame.
The RP will have the typical FF high ISO advantage, more shallow DoF, and will produce sharper images ooc. The sharpness is somewhat irrelevant at low ISO where you can sharpen in post, especially against a 32mp crop sensor. But it will be very relevant at high ISO where crop is already behind and sharpening just emphasizes noise. Contrary to popular belief, the 6D2 / RP sensor has very good high ISO performance.

Unless you go high MP FF, those are the advantages of FF and the RP checks every box. DR is often mistaken for being a FF advantage but there are plenty of examples of crop cameras having higher DR than FF ones, and not just Sony vs. Canon. The M6 II likely has higher DR than a Nikon D5 (for example). Regardless, the one weakness of the RP for stills would be some of the "worst" DR for a shipping camera. "Worst" is in quotes because as I've shown in this forum with a mere 7D there's still plenty of shadow recovery even in the "worst" sensors.

The M6 II will resolve more detail at base ISO (32mp vs 26mp) and will have a DR advantage, in addition to its feature advantages (video; high FPS; higher performance AF).

I think if I was looking for a budget stills mirrorless I would rank the RP above the M6 II by a hair, and that's in part due to RF glass access. Problem is for another $300 gray market you can go 50mp FF, which is a very large IQ jump. You just have to live with a 'flappy mirror'. But you also get professional AF, 5D build quality, long battery life, OVF IQ, etc.

If I was looking for a stills/video hybrid then I would rank the M6 II much higher than the RP. From the sample videos I've seen the 90D / M62 produce sharp, excellent 4k footage in both full sensor and crop sensor modes.* And the M6 II has DPAF across every mode except the 120fps HD mode which the RP doesn't even have.

* DPReview's video test comparison tool makes the 90D/M6 II look very poor at 4k compared to, say, an X-T3. But I've now had the chance to review several 4k sample videos and they look as sharp as the X-T3 or A73. Right away when I viewed the DSI Pictures sample video I was impressed as it had the same crisp 4k detail as the others, even at high ISO. At this point I have to assume DPReview did something wrong or used a poor lens. The X-T3 is still the better cinema camera (4k 60p; higher bitrates) but if you can live with 30p @ 120Mbps the M6 II's output is gorgeous.