Some people who don't know any better will put them on an R or even an RP. They might not even upgrade if and when a camera of the same level comes along, whatever that means. Either the chicken or the egg has to come first.
You’re not alone!I hate to be 'that guy' but where's my RF35 1.2L
Some people who don't know any better will put them on an R or even an RP. They might not even upgrade if and when a camera of the same level comes along, whatever that means. Either the chicken or the egg has to come first.
You clowns are hilarious. These lenses will be great on an R...
Well, then, you might be right. I don’t remember what Canon’s approach was regarding the two-tiered L lenses when they were just making SLRs. It may have been the same. Build the larger aperture lenses first, then the f4 series L lenses later?Canon clearly believes that Pros need to be convinced that top RF lenses are a priority, otherwise why pay attention to mirrorless. There's no doubt that a high end body is on the way.
I have the opposite problem. I am becoming convinced that Canon does not intend to serve the needs of small, one-man-band, mixed media content creators. Sony and Panasonic are leading there.
So true. Honestly, the R is a great camera. I wouldn't use it to shoot sports, but I don't generally use the 5DIV for sports either. Most of the comments here are from people who don't know enough to realize they are making fools of themselves.
I bought the RP to be a travel camera and barely had it for two weeks before I went on a dream vacation to the Mediterranean. I seriously don't understand why having a lower feature, lower cost, lighter full frame camera is a bad thing. It was great for carrying around Barcelona, Nice, Monaco, and Cinque Terre. I didn't need 12 fps or a billion autofocus points. Even Swiss Army Knives come in many sizes and configurations.
And yet there is no camera of the same level to put them on...
Good stuff. I stand corrected.Some sample shots with my R last week using the latest firmware with tracking Servo AF
A bit of overlap can be an advantage, especially in cities where constant lens swapping isn't always easy...I agree, but I am torn between overlap (16-35, 24-70) and aperture. It's killing me.
Well, as has already been pointed out, there is that card slot issue.So true. Honestly, the R is a great camera. I wouldn't use it to shoot sports, but I don't generally use the 5DIV for sports either. Most of the comments here are from people who don't know enough to realize they are making fools of themselves.
Good stuff. I stand corrected.
But, understand I didn't mean you can't shoot sports with the R. Obviously you can and can get great shots. I was just making the point that different cameras lend themselves to different uses and if you have a choice of bodies, it can make sense to use a body optimized for the use case. I'm fortunate, in that I have a 1Dx II, which I am accustomed to. So for me, that would be my body of choice for sports.
My sense, after just one day of using the R, is that it has a lot of strengths that can make it a good professional tool. In my limited experience the silent shutter was absolutely brilliant for taking photos in meetings where I did not want to disturb the participants. In that use case, it is far superior to the 1Dx II.
Overall point is that too many people are writing off the R because of arbitrary standards and without having used the camera.
Dealing with zoom overlap is definitely a high class problem with a lot of tradeoffs to mull over.A bit of overlap can be an advantage, especially in cities where constant lens swapping isn't always easy...
The 11-24 is more limited in its use, of course, this is just my very own point of view!
I hate to be 'that guy' but where's my RF35 1.2L
I guess he needs a camera that has true full auto. Not only does it read your mind to set the look you want with perfect exposure but can also offer 20 stops of IS with self-levitation so i can compose the shot for you, hands free, while instantly posting to facebook and getting it placed at the top of google searches. Not to mention the ability to print 24x36 high definition canvas straight from the camera.... or he could just be a terrible photographer who can make a Hassleblad look like an iPhone 3Now if he could just find a photographer.
Good stuff. I stand corrected.
But, understand I didn't mean you can't shoot sports with the R. Obviously you can and can get great shots. I was just making the point that different cameras lend themselves to different uses and if you have a choice of bodies, it can make sense to use a body optimized for the use case. I'm fortunate, in that I have a 1Dx II, which I am accustomed to. So for me, that would be my body of choice for sports.
My sense, after just one day of using the R, is that it has a lot of strengths that can make it a good professional tool. In my limited experience the silent shutter was absolutely brilliant for taking photos in meetings where I did not want to disturb the participants. In that use case, it is far superior to the 1Dx II.
Overall point is that too many people are writing off the R because of arbitrary standards and without having used the camera.
To get back on topic. I really can't wait to see what the price of the 70-200 is and what the reviews are like.