There's nothing wrong with the RP if that's what the buyer wants.The problem with this setup is that it is an RP.
Upvote
0
There's nothing wrong with the RP if that's what the buyer wants.The problem with this setup is that it is an RP.
And I used to think you were swell. Obviously not.lol. for sure with some kit lens. lol. at f/7.1 lol. and you dure its a female butterfly? just asking. cant see the details. and now, monarch wing, take flight and buzz off.
True enough--problem solved! And actually I don't even have the f2.8 yet, I've got the f/4, but this might push me over the edge. If the virus goes away and I can work again.......What about an RF 24-62 f/4-f5.6 ? or an RF 24-80 f/4-6.3 Would you prefer those? Because that's what this lens offers.
Really? Admittedly it will not deliver 1D or 5Dmk4-R quality, but unless you have taken the time to actually use it for real photography, you may want to qualify your statement. Some people find the trade-off of relative quality (it is actually really quite good and holds up its own at higher ISO) for compactness and a highly versatile user experience is just what we need, and at a price point at which you can own 2 or 3 bodies to reduce lens changes. Try the built-in JPEG (which I had never done since my Digital Rebel in 2004), it does some very competent upgrading of the image (or correction of the lens and sensor if you prefer), which makes one re-think all the pre-conceived ideas one had about workflow and hardware after 15 years of DSLR. New system = new thinking.The problem with this setup is that it is an RP.
I would say "excellent". I use an RP with the 24-240 (even more versatile but more pricey too, image quality quite sufficient for video), AF face recognition is excellent, it has microphone and headset sockets and HDMI to a monitor if you need, I use a nifty $250 2.4 Mhz dual Lavalier microphone system and some LED lights, plus some expandable backdrops. The auto-level for sound is quite OK, no need for a mixer for simple applications.What is the suitability of this combo for video production in a low-cost entry level scenario?
What are you talking about? Remember that in an EVF your are in constant LiveView, and with Expo Simulation, the image is always bright and easy to compose, not like a DSLR viewfinder. With live histograms you nail exposure pretty much every time, no need for review.lol. for sure with some kit lens. lol. at f/7.1 lol. and you dure its a female butterfly? just asking. cant see the details. and now, monarch wing, take flight and buzz off.
I really wanted to like this lens--I thought it would be a good alternative to lugging the f/2.8 around in travels. Less weight, and less to lose if it bangs into a train door. But I can't get past that f/7.1. Maybe therapy would help. It's not at all far from 6.8, but psychologically.....
I wish it were f/4-5.6. And 24-70 or 80 would have been plenty.
all EOS RP has is a re-used 6D II sensor that was already outclassed back when it first appeared. and it is still too big for what it is. it should be only slightly bigger than a Sigma fp, to accomodate an EVF and a LP-E6NH power pack instead of the sorry joke of a LP-E17.
Many posters whined when the inexpensive RP was released that there were nothing but but wildly expensive native RF lenses to go on it . Canon has begun responding to that criticism. Now, the critics whine that the inexpensive lenses and kits are not as good enough. Eye roll here. This RF kit is not for all of us, but it looks to me like a great value for its modestly-bankrolled target customers.
Exacto mundo!Many posters whined when the inexpensive RP was released that there were nothing but but wildly expensive native RF lenses to go on it . Canon has begun responding to that criticism. Now, the critics whine that the inexpensive lenses and kits are not as good enough. Eye roll here. This RF kit is not for all of us, but it looks to me like a great value for its modestly-bankrolled target customers.
Actually, only the two primes are priced noticeably higher than their previous EF versions. The 28-70 is a unique lens with nothing to compare to. The RF 24-70 f/2.8 had the same release price as the EF 24-70 II and it has IS. The RF70-200 is also the same. The RF 15-35 is higher, but it is also 1 mm wider and has IS and is optically superior to its EF counterpart (vignetting notwithstanding). I picked up the 24-105 f/4L and the RF35 f/1.8 for what I consider to be very fair prices. I am currently waiting for the RF f/4L versions of the 15-35 and the 70-200.Perhaps what was hoped for was a sort of mid-grade lens. The EF L lenses weren't often such "God" lenses, like the R lenses were (should perhaps be called L+). The price point (and commensurate quality of course!) I expect people were hoping for was USD 1-2K instead of well over $2K.
EF 70-200 f2.8L IS III, $1,799, but often street priced lower.Actually, only the two primes are priced noticeably higher than their previous EF versions. The 28-70 is a unique lens with nothing to compare to. The RF 24-70 f/2.8 had the same release price as the EF 24-70 II and it has IS. The RF70-200 is also the same. The RF 15-35 is higher, but it is also 1 mm wider and has IS and is optically superior to its EF counterpart (vignetting notwithstanding). I picked up the 24-105 f/4L and the RF35 f/1.8 for what I consider to be very fair prices. I am currently waiting for the RF f/4L versions of the 15-35 and the 70-200.
Release price be damned. That's just good comedy. Well, the 70-200 f/2.8L II was released in late 2010 I believe. So just wait and see how reasonable the price of an RF 70-200 f/2.8 will be in 2029. I know mine has a lot more life left in it and will last that long barring any calamitous events...EF 70-200 f2.8L IS III, $1,799, but often street priced lower.
RF 70-200 f2.8L IS, $2,699.
Release price be damned, how much do I need to spend to get the focal lengths I need, if I look at RF it is simply too much money, $7,300 for three f2.8 zooms is a lot of money considering my options.