No Sigma lenses as of yet use the RF mount.Is the Sigma an RF mount?
Upvote
0
No Sigma lenses as of yet use the RF mount.Is the Sigma an RF mount?
Once again, I didn’t say they are not selling, just that I have only ever seen two people using them.
I am quite sure the type of person that buys a camera from Amazon is different to those who buy from camera stores.. We also don’t know the figures. That would be interesting. It is a shame Canon have not developed the system lens wise with only 8 lenses currently available.
"I am quite sure...." So much wrong with that statement. Seriously where do I begin?Once again, I didn’t say they are not selling, just that I have only ever seen two people using them.
I am quite sure the type of person that buys a camera from Amazon is different to those who buy from camera stores.. We also don’t know the figures. That would be interesting. It is a shame Canon have not developed the system lens wise with only 8 lenses currently available.
Depends how you interpret it. Many here in my area are loyal to their local camera shop and love to go in, handle the kit and get advice. There is also a big group that go to their local camera store to see the kit, then buy from one of the grey import companies. I would put money on the majority of Amazon camera buyers not visiting camera shops and instead doing their research online. I am not suggesting any of these groups are wrong, just different. A lot of older togs I know visit camera stores to do trade ins on their outgoing kit, something you cannot do on Amazon."I am quite sure...." So much wrong with that statement. Seriously where do I begin?
Maybe start with inserting a quote about Jon Snow here?
No, sometimes the meaning of a statement or sentiment doesn’t come across the right way in a short online comment. It is also very easy to read a comment with a personal bias.Why say it then? Surely it was implying that they don't sell here.
Which is where an RF APS-C body comes in.As for not developing it, that's a common complaint but I think it misses the point. The M series is as developed as it needs to be for the target market. I take Canon's strategy to be, you want more specialised/esoteric glass, you go with EF or RF.
Fair enough. As for RF APS-C, I still find it a bit of an odd proposition, but I am not a business analyst.No, sometimes the meaning of a statement or sentiment doesn’t come across the right way in a short online comment. It is also very easy to read a comment with a personal bias.
Which is where an RF APS-C body comes in.
RF 100-400, RF 100-500L, RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11 are all begging for an APS-C sensor.Fair enough. As for RF APS-C, I still find it a bit of an odd proposition, but I am not a business analyst.
Funny, I'd say the last two are evidence against it.RF 100-400, RF 100-500L, RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11 are all begging for an APS-C sensor.
R7 = R5 + 1.4 Extender - a lot of moneyFunny, I'd say the last two are evidence against it.
R5 + 1.4x Extender is equivalent to 35 Mpx APS-C in terms of resolution and field of view, but with the diffraction limits of 45 Mpx FF or 17 Mpx APS-C.R7 = R5 + 1.4 Extender - a lot of money
You are right in that an f/11 lens matches up better with a low density sensor like that on the R6 because of diffraction limits. I find that it's not worth putting the RF 1.4x on the RF 100-400mm f/8 when it's on the R5, but it is on the R6 for additional reach. With a true 35 MPx APS-C, you would need an f/4 lens or wider to start taking full advantage of its resolution (as is noticeable on the 90D or M6 II).Funny, I'd say the last two are evidence against it.
I was wondering the same thing. If the current FF R-series can auto-crop to an EF-S lens, then I'm not sure how significant the production savings are in making a new APSC sensor - unless they just cripple the existing sensor to be full-time APSC.I wonder what's the point any more. What % difference of the total cost of the camera would an APS-C sensor versus a Full Frame camera?
A full frame that can crop in the view finder would be more flexible. An R7 would have to be quite robust (to match a 7D ruggedness).
I wonder would they make it more computational like an Olympus. It could I suppose have a good frame rate.
I hope the sensor is better than the 7DII (a sensor I was never happy with).
I’d second Sporgon’s comment on the M system. For short trips where I’m packing light (carryon luggage only), I bring the M6, M11-22, M18-150 and a little Gorillapod. It’s a really small and light kit that delivers very good images.I'd love to see a mirrorless Rebel.
Would that be the same 'huge market' that was clamoring for a 7DIII...that Canon decided not to make?
I'm always skeptical when people claim to know more about the market than a global, multibillion dollar company with mountains of market research data.
I believe the 7D Mk III wasn't made because there was a lack of customers and interested people waiting for it. imho the end of the 7D II life-cycle just coincided with the release of the RF mount. The 7D II came out in 2014 and considering a normal 4-year cycle it should've ended in 2018 with a new 7d III. The release of the RF mount, as we now know, was actually the death of of EF mount and their cameras.
So, my point is: just because the 7D III was never released, it doesn't necessarily state that there wasn't a market for it or that there isn't a market for an R7.
In retrospective: imho Canon should have released a 7d III in 2017 or early 2018. It would have had enough time to sell and given Canon the appropriate time to develop a scheme for R-ASPC strategy while having satisfied customers.
Consider that 1) over 40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, 2) Canon and Nikon are the only major manufacturers making DSLRs, and 3) Canon has a much larger market share than Nikon. That means Canon dominates the DSLR market segment without strong competition – generally a desirable place for a company to be. What’s the incentive for Canon to try and shift that segment to one where there’s lots of competition?
Except that isn't true. Here are the production figures for DSLRs and MILCs for the past decade. The shift to MILCs is not 'accelerating'. MILC shipments have been flat basically since CIPA started tracking the segment. DSLRs are definitely in decline, but MILCs are not gaining as a result (thanks to Kayaker72 on TDP for the plot).The incentive for Canon is that market demand is shifting to mirrorless with or without Canon having products in that segment. They're not going to be caught near as flat-footed this time as they were a half decade ago when the shift to FF MILCs accelerated far beyond their own predictions and expectations.