The down time is here, when is the Canon momentum coming?

[photofrankdzi]

The RF 50STM seems to perform like the EF 50STM to me. But I find the 50STM decidedly better than the earlier EF 50/1.8's.

I have an EF 50 f1.8 stm and an
RF 50 f1.8 for comparing:
My Test (I am engaged Photo-Hobbyist)
produces difficulties:
The EF is sharper than the RF.

 

[mawz]

In my tests of the EF135/2 vs. RF135/1.8 on the R5, the RF is "only" hand-holdable about 1-1.5 more stops. For instance the EF at 1/30th is about enough even when using full resolution. The RF can do 1/15 (better than the EF @ 1/30) or 1/8th (a bit worse).

Personally I'd prefer NOT having the additional IS in each lens. Besides being size weight and cost, I must assume it has SOME kind of impact on image quality. Although the new lenses are just mind-blowing, perhaps they could be yet better without this.

The two lenses I'm suggesting have IS are for a simple reason, both would be attractive to the R10 owner as well. Note the f2.8 lens did not have IS in the spec I suggested.

You can do some crazy things with Sync IS, the OM-1/12-100 combo is reliably handholdable out to 2+ seconds when shooting around 12mm, I'd like to see something similar from Canon as my experience so far suggests Canon's IBIS implementation rivals Olympus's (something Fuji and Sony's very much does not. Nikon's is pretty good but limits Sync VR to only the Z8/9 and a couple lenses)

 

[mawz]

I have an EF 50 f1.8 stm and an
RF 50 f1.8 for comparing:
My Test (I am engaged Photo-Hobbyist)
produces difficulties:
The EF is sharper than the RF.

Note any test of individual lenses will produce copy variation. That's a very plausible result if you got a better copy of the EF50STM than you did of the RF50STM.

 

[mpb001]

Quoting is borked now.


IMO, the only thing really missing is an RF-S UWA zoom (10/11 - 18/22mm). There are a growing number of RF primes (16/2.8, 28/2.8 and the STM macro lenses), and longer RF-S lenses aren’t needed.


Very unlikely we’ll ever see a gripped APS-C body. I was surprised by the lack of a battery grip at all, though. But I guess they’re not popular – they were being given away with bodies recently.

I’ll still probably pick up an R7 once prices come around the $1000 area. I do like the small size of the body and if they had added a grip it still would have been pretty small. I’d be willing to give up FF of my 5DIV for a small crop sensor for travel.

 

[SwissFrank]

The two lenses I'm suggesting have IS are for a simple reason, both would be attractive to the R10 owner as well. Note the f2.8 lens did not have IS in the spec I suggested.

You can do some crazy things with Sync IS, the OM-1/12-100 combo is reliably handholdable out to 2+ seconds when shooting around 12mm, I'd like to see something similar from Canon as my experience so far suggests Canon's IBIS implementation rivals Olympus's (something Fuji and Sony's very much does not. Nikon's is pretty good but limits Sync VR to only the Z8/9 and a couple lenses)

Hey Mawz, if you check my SHOOTOUT posts on this site's forum (under Gear Talk-->Lenses) you'll see the 50/1.8 is usable at 2 sec even when pixel-peeping on an R5. There are a lot more useful notes there which I won't waste people's time repeating here.

50mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF50/1.8 vs. the RF24-105/4LIS

See my other posts for details of the goals and methodology. But in short, these targets are 1:1 selections from laser printer-printed targets under household incandescent, hand-held in a seated position. The selections are sorted, for each shutter speed, from sharpest to least sharp. A...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[David - Sydney]

As mentioned elsewhere, 9-22/4 IS, 15-45/2.8 and 15-70/4 IS would be what I'm looking for for my R7. NB - these are crop factor adjusted versions of lenses I can buy today from Sony and Fuji for their APS-C systems.

The long end is well covered, and not just by white ones.

You can always use adapted EF-S lenses whilst waiting for RF native lenses

 

[mawz]

You can always use adapted EF-S lenses whilst waiting for RF native lenses

That's exactly what I am doing.

 

[Austintatious]

Will there be a Canon R5C Mk.2?

After the R5 Mk.2 releases how long do you think till the R5C Mk.2?

 

[Dreysi]

I could get excited about a firmware update to the R5 that enabled the pre shoot buffering like the R6 and R3. I have simple needs

Wait whaaaat the R3 has shooting buffer and I missed it? Christmas came early?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Does Canon need any more momentum? The R5 is slated for replacement soon and it's only just being matched by Nikon some 3 years later. When Canon are this far ahead of the game, it's pretty clear that Nikon is playing a massive catchup and needs the momentum. With so many great RF camera bodies and RF lenses relased (plus the massive back catalogue of EF lenses), Canon don't need to try too hard to stay ahead.
Canon's only real competition is Sony.

 

[koenkooi]

Does Canon need any more momentum? The R5 is slated for replacement soon and it's only just being matched by Nikon some 3 years later. When Canon are this far ahead of the game, it's pretty clear that Nikon is playing a massive catchup and needs the momentum. With so many great RF camera bodies and RF lenses relased (plus the massive back catalogue of EF lenses), Canon don't need to try too hard to stay ahead.
Canon's only real competition is Sony.

When talking about €€€€€€€ full frame bodies, yes. But the bulk of Canons revenue is from cheap APS-C kits, which no-one else seems to be doing. The ZV series isn't cheap, Fuji aims to be expensive and OM systems doing its own thing.

 

[unfocused]

...But the bulk of Canons revenue is from cheap APS-C kits, which no-one else seems to be doing. The ZV series isn't cheap, Fuji aims to be expensive and OM systems doing its own thing.

It would be interesting to know if the trend lines are still moving in this direction. Smart Phones killed the point and shoot market. It seems like they have the "cheap APS-C kits" in their crosshairs now. The observation that "no-one else" is aiming at this market might be an indication of the lack of value other companies see in this market. Canon dominates this market, but do they see any future in it?

 

[Jethro]

It would be interesting to know if the trend lines are still moving in this direction. Smart Phones killed the point and shoot market. It seems like they have the "cheap APS-C kits" in their crosshairs now. The observation that "no-one else" is aiming at this market might be an indication of the lack of value other companies see in this market. Canon dominates this market, but do they see any future in it?

Some of the newer smart phones are marketed primarily on their image capture (including video), now including multiple lenses offering quality at different lengths, and relatively bigger sensors. If you bundle that with enhanced software (eg the new Google Pixel offering 'AI' image enhancement including object replacement) and instant connectivity, I can see it being more attractive to a lot of people than carrying around a separate kit involving an ILC. There pretty clearly is still a market for these kits, but surely it's got to dwindle a lot over time.

 

[koenkooi]

It would be interesting to know if the trend lines are still moving in this direction. Smart Phones killed the point and shoot market. It seems like they have the "cheap APS-C kits" in their crosshairs now. The observation that "no-one else" is aiming at this market might be an indication of the lack of value other companies see in this market. Canon dominates this market, but do they see any future in it?

That's what I'm wondering as well, my phone could do almost all family, vacation and business travel pictures at a 'good enough' level, which is where I'd use an EOS M or 100D in the past and now an R8. But for me, I get the most joy from macro and close up photography and phones haven't caught up with the 100-500 or 180 macro yet

 

[Adrianf]

An R6 mkii2 with a better (than R7) crop sensor please Mr Canon. It doesn't have to be 32Mpx. It could be less. Same body, same controls, just different sensor. Just like the 7D2 was to the 5D2,3,4.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

When talking about €€€€€€€ full frame bodies, yes. But the bulk of Canons revenue is from cheap APS-C kits, which no-one else seems to be doing. The ZV series isn't cheap, Fuji aims to be expensive and OM systems doing its own thing.

I'm not so sure, that mayhave been tehir model back in the DSLR days. But Canon have re-worked their model / business plan and these days thery are selling a LOT of high end RF L glass to a lot of rich but photograhically inexperianced people. I see a lot of newbies buying R5 or R6II's rocking a fearsome array of RF L primes that only the wealthy pros could struggle to afford.
I honestly read on a facebook chat group the other day of a house wife who bought a R6II and a RF 28-70 f2.0 L to photograph her child and dog with zero photographic experiance and was complaining that the AF wasn't good and she couldn't get clear or sharp images....geeze....all the gear and NO IDEA!

Canon's current model seems to sell a lot of high end glass and the bodies are just a vehicle or loss leader for that model. That's why Canon are preventing 3rd party lenses on their new RF mount, It's why the RF lense are SO expensive and over priced. If Canon allows 3rd party lenses, then their over inflated margins drop becuase they ahve to compete against Sigma, Tamron etc. It's an example of corporate greed.

 

[Flyingskiguy]

@Canon Rumors Guy any cinema eos updates to speak of? closing in on IBC