- Jan 22, 2012
For me it is definitely a migration project from EF to R mount. It may not seem that way to you.I am not sure I would categorize my investment in the R5 as a migration. I have an adapter mounted to the camera and I mount the EF lens that suites my purpose. The R5 is bringing new capability to my existing lens collection. I am happy with the performance of my EF collection, and unless something breaks, have no intention of upgrading any of it to RF. As far as I am concerned, the new mount is whatever, and I would have been happy with an EF mount mirrorless camera system (well the vnd mount adapter is really cool).
Personally I haven’t used the RF 35 f2 so I couldn’t answer that. What I do know is lenses don’t take pictures, photographers using lenses do. I’d take a good photographers images with a bad lens over a bad photographers images with a good lens any day.
I did a photo review last night for 8 photographers. The images covered a wide range of subjects and disciplines and the gear used ranged from very modest to very expensive. The consensus amongst the group was that the most compelling images of the night were shot with the EF 50 f1.4.
Don't forget the aerodynamic aerographene camera bag zipper pull upgrades so you don't lose all the momentum you've gained with your leg shaving strategy when experiencing a strong side-wind.Shaving your legs saves enough weight so you can carry around a slightly heavier lens.
I wasn't changing the subject, you were too obtuse to see the point. I'll spell it out for you better.Why change the subject to talent of individual photographers when we're talking purely about hardware here? An amazing photographer took a beautiful picture with a low tier Powershot. Great. What does that have to do with the fact that an R5 is a far more technologically capable camera than that low-level Powershot? Lol Seriously, what is wrong with people?
But the EF 35 f1.4 II is not slow to focus has beautiful rendering and is a fraction the size weight and cost the new RF version will be. Am I wrong to question the value of that as a purchase for many people?
What is wrong with people? Quite a lot, sadly, especially if they think buying all this new gear is going to make them a better photographer.
Welllllll I just bought the R5 and some of the RF Zooms and am definitely not buying any further EF glass and I'd love to have the 35mm RF 1.2 ANNNNNDDDD the 24mm that you are talking about. lol. I love my EF glass and have zero plans to sell it. Still works great. But moving forward as I add lenses, I'm thinking more of the convenience of keeping native mounts together and long term investment in glass and honestly for a lot of the shooting I do, I really appreciate that control ring on the RF glass. But hey, I also really thought the Macbook touchbar was the dumbest thing ever and then I used it and with all the little programmable shortcuts I can get for it wouldn't want a macbook without it. So maybe I just have bad taste, but I'm happy with my choices and my workflow and ultimately usually any gear I buy pays for itself rapidly.You do not know this.
It should have been a 35mm 1.4. I thought mirrorless meant smaller lenses. 1.2 is not even necessary at 35mm. Sony got it right with theirs. I wont switch to canon unless they come out with some light 1.4 primes. The 1.8 lenses are a joke with their terrible and slow video auto focus.
And yet Canon sell many more M series cameras and lenses than EF or R...The market has clearly shown that size is not that important. If it was, olympus would be king of the hill and Sony wouldn't be struggling to match Canon on fast high-quality glass.
If size really mattered, more people would still be shooting old film cameras from before the AF era.
Now, go back to admiring your Sony 35/2.8 for being almost as compact as a mid-80´s 50/1.4 or 24/2.8
Canon does, but does it do so because small size is inherently important, or just because they are "beginner" or "casual" cameras that are economical and will therefore appeal to more people?And yet Canon sell many more M series cameras and lenses than EF or R...
Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.Canon does, but does it do so because small size is inherently important, or just because they are "beginner" or "casual" cameras that are economical and will therefore appeal to more people?
One way to control for this is to discover whether people like us buy more M-series cameras than full frame or physically large EF-S cameras. If *we* do so then we value small size a lot. But somehow I doubt most of us buy more M gear (even counting units sold, not money spent) than EF/RF gear. I might be close to being an exception.
And they can take great pictures. I took several 13" x 19' prints to an art show on Sunday. Most were taken with G-series cameras.Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.
Maybe to people like us size/weight isn't that important, but for a "casual" photographer perhaps size, weight and cost are important. I appreciate the 1" fixed lens cameras for their portability and for their unobtrusiveness.
12 months from now, Sigma and Tamron will be ready to take yours (and mine) RF mount moneyI just bought the RF 35mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/2 and I see clearly now the difference between L and non-L. These lenses are fine - sharp, light, well-built - but the focusing in and out - buzz, buzz, buzz - is annoying as hell. But I cannot justify a collection of f/1.2 primes and I don't want the giant size/weight. I will make do with these STM's until Canon makes a series of f/1.4's that'll be fast, quiet, small-ish, weather-sealed, with IS and relatively affordable.
I am Goldilcks, there's no denying it.