UK pricing for the new Canon gear has leaked ahead of tomorrow’s announcement

I did read another rumour that it has a BSI sensor so will have better noise handling and better dynamic range, other than that and 24 MP I see no advantage for me a stills photographer to upgrade! Would be interesting to see if subtle things like the hot shoe design has been improved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
To be clear, I have zero complaints on the stills side. After all I bought this camera for it's stills purposes. That said, if this has some dramatic improvements in video use, I will certainly buy it especially at this price. (I will sell the mark 1)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The price for RF 135 is very bad. I remember when I bout new EF 135 for around 900 US dollars.
1.8 and 2.0 just 1/3 of the step difference. IS cost 1k ? The lens overpriced.
Its my favorite lens, but price for RF version is huge.
May be 1200 - 1450 for new lens price can be interesting, but not 2k
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The price for RF 135 is very bad. I remember when I bout new EF 135 for around 900 US dollars.
1.8 and 2.0 just 1/3 of the step difference. IS cost 1k ? The lens overpriced.
Its my favorite lens, but price for RF version is huge.
May be 1200 - 1450 for new lens price can be interesting, but not 2k
To be fair, the price of all the RF L lenses are atrocious - double to triple what EF L lenses used to be. I shot as a pro for 15 years and had all sorts of nice L glass but now, I would only use third party lenses (which have to be adapted but still work outstandingly well).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Ouch on the UK pricing, that's a good £800 more than a Z6ii. I know Canon's tracking and subject detection is better than the Z6ii, but still it feels like the pricing reflects a higher end model than where I expect the R6 line to sit.
 
Upvote 0
Let’s wait and see what the full specification is before berating the price increase. I paid £ 3,100 when I bought the EOS 5DS many years ago now that was eye watering. Granted that camera was 50MP but everything else about the R6 MKII we know so far is a much improved camera. Right now my main camera is the R5 with the R6 and R as backups although I use the R6 quite frequently so I’m interested to see how & where it’s improved.
 
Upvote 0
Tax?

UK prices will usually include 20% VAT (so ~£2330 + VAT)
US prices are often 'pre-tax' - consumer sales in the UK are not generally allowed to feature such prices

I know this has been missed out in many rumours of pricing for nearly 20 years, and still it comes as a surprise to some... ;-) It he UK price were ex-VAT, it would make the store price ~£3360. Something to make some posters here blow a gasket :)
It is more than just a tax difference on the 135mm f1.8. Look at the US price difference between an R6 MKII body and a 135mm. Then compare that to the difference on the UK pricing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The price for RF 135 is very bad. I remember when I bout new EF 135 for around 900 US dollars.
1.8 and 2.0 just 1/3 of the step difference. IS cost 1k ? The lens overpriced.
Its my favorite lens, but price for RF version is huge.
May be 1200 - 1450 for new lens price can be interesting, but not 2k
How much has inflation added in the intervening 26.5 years?
 
Upvote 0
I bought my EF 135 not more than 5 years ago
So you're comparing the street price of a lens you bought when that model had been available for over twenty years to the RRP/MSRP of a brand new one? I'm not disputing there's a premium applied to RF versus the EF lenses they replace, but you're exaggerating the difference by cherry picking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The price for RF 135 is very bad. I remember when I bout new EF 135 for around 900 US dollars.
1.8 and 2.0 just 1/3 of the step difference. IS cost 1k ? The lens overpriced.
Its my favorite lens, but price for RF version is huge.
May be 1200 - 1450 for new lens price can be interesting, but not 2k
Hi Alexander!

Yes, I bought the EF135mm new in 1997 and it was my favorite lens for 25 years.

But I got the RF135 and it is a HUUUUUUUUGE improvement.

See my test photos here based on 400 shots with these lenses (and the excellent 100-500). https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-the-rf100-500-4-5-7-1-and-the-ef135-2.42144/

I would say the most important improvement is:

The WORST of ten shots at 1/30 with the RF is much sharper than ANY of one hundred shots with the EF, at any speed, or even with a tripod.

So is the #2 WORST of ten shots at 1/15 with the RF.


Read that very carefully and think about it. Your sharpest photo with the EF? Even 1/2000 shutter? Even on a tripod? The RF does better 90% of the time hand-held, wide-open, at 1/15.

And if you get the RF on a tripod it is sharper, at f/1.8, than an R5 can really even show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
...
The WORST of ten shots at 1/30 with the RF is much sharper than ANY of one hundred shots with the EF, at any speed, or even with a tripod.

So is the #2 WORST of ten shots at 1/15 with the RF.

...
Man... @SwissFrank, you sound like a Canon sales guy ;)
But your arguments make me think about a lens, I never had in focus when thinking about switching to R/RF... Oh, my GAS... ;);)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Man... @SwissFrank, you sound like a Canon sales guy ;)
Haha!

Tthe RF100-500 (at the short end, I haven't tested the long end yet) and the RF135 are shockingly good. The zoom is ALSO better than the EF135 from about 1/60! Unbelievable! (RF100 also fantastic.)

BUT, the 24-105 at 100mm is not in the same league. It's image quality is good, but not even as good as the EF135. It's far worse than the 100-500 (at the wide end) or the RF100 or RF135. No Canon sales guy would say that :-D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0