My latest foray into FF mirrorless - and why I'm sticking with m43

Levster

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
1,395
Location
Portsmouth, United Kingdom
Curious about your thoughts on the Fuji X-T30 or the Sony a6400. I'm tempted by both of them but I see you are back from the X-T20 so I don't know. I see the a6400 has outstanding autofocus but of course no IBIS and not quite the selection of inexpensive lenses as µ4/3. And the X-T30 lost it's 4 way directional pad. Not sure I would be good without it. I guess there is always the X-T3.

I found the X-T20 to be really good at autofocusing and it got more hitters than I’m currently getting with the E-M5II. It’s the lenses that are holding me back from Fuji, however with the 16-80/4 due to arrive this year, that may be enough to tempt me back again. The 18-55 is good but no WR and the 16-55/2.8 is apparently good but no IS! I’m hovering over purchasing an X-T2 now that the prices are sensible, as one thing I did find was that the X-T20 was a bit small for me.

I’m not sure about Sony with their APS-C cameras, whereas if I had the money I would be using a A7 Mk III! I like the Sigma 1.4 trilogy and this would make an awesome APS-C kit, however I just don’t feel any draw towards the Sony A6000 series. If I was to go there, it’d be the A6500 series for the IBIS. But that IBIS isn’t all that good when compared to a GX9 or E-M5II. The AF on the A6500 is supposedly really good too, just not quite as good as the A6400.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,988
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I think the R is a big mistake, but the RP has it's place. I'm starting to come around to it.
The RP is meant as a low-price option. Of the 4 currently available R lenses, only one of them is a non L lens. Of the recently announced 6 "in-development" R lenses, only one of them is a non L lens.

Canon will have 10 R lenses by the end of the year, and 80% of them will be L lenses. Not exactly cheap. How many people are going to buy a $1,300 camera, and then buy a $2,300 50mm prime lens? I would venture a guess of "not very many"

It's not a high-end camera, but most people don't need high end cameras. It has solid, reliable dual pixel AF.

See my point above. It's not a high-end camera, but nearly even lens is a high-end L lens. Also, dual pixel AF only works in 1080p mode, not in 4K. This is 2019, and Canon made a camera where arguably their greatest technology doesn't work with 4K video.

It doesn't have IBIS, but aside from M4/3 (and the forlorn, partially-baked A6500 and A7 II), what competing cameras do?

Every other camera manufacturer has IBIS. Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, Sony, Nikon, Pentax. All of them have managed to implement IBIS in at least one of their bodies, but the world's biggest name in photography hasn't yet. I think it speaks more to the technical capabilities of Canon as a camera manufacturer than anything else. They're severely lagging the competition, and yet sheeple still flock to them for some reason.

The biggest problem is the lack of consumer oriented lenses, but the EF adapter is included in that $1300 purchase, so you can just trawl your local classifieds and it's not hard to find dozens of Canon DSLRs lenses for cheap, especially the ones that aren't "L" grade.

While you can certainly use adapted glass on the RP, if you don't already own an EF camera, it's a bit of an odd situation. You're buying lenses for native mount which you don't own, solely because Canon has decided to build and release pro-level native lenses, despite releasing an entry and mid-level body.

It's a bit like if Olympus were starting over again, and they decided to release an E-PL camera and then a shitload of PRO lenses. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
The RP is meant as a low-price option. Of the 4 currently available R lenses, only one of them is a non L lens. Of the recently announced 6 "in-development" R lenses, only one of them is a non L lens.

Canon will have 10 R lenses by the end of the year, and 80% of them will be L lenses. Not exactly cheap. How many people are going to buy a $1,300 camera, and then buy a $2,300 50mm prime lens? I would venture a guess of "not very many"
Correct, not very many at all.

But here's the thing - I don't think the target market is going to buy very many lenses at all, period. Historically they definitely don't.

Canon would still be thrilled to bits if the vast majority of people got the $2200 RP + RF24-105/f4 kit. And so would most of its users. That kit does come with the EF adapter, so for those users who find that f/4 falls down in certain circumstances, I'm sure they'll be happy to complement their kit with a $125 50mm/1.8 STM. Or the $500 RF35/1.8.

This is the beginning of the system. Eventually, a few years down the line, the consumer lenses will start to trickle in, and the high-end bodies will start to trickle in. Not everyone needs a complete system that can shoot from 14-600mm (with a full selection of bright primes) right off the bat. Heck, most people don't have anywhere near the budget for that. They add lenses every few years to expand their system (and give themselves a new toy).

Why not the bitter complaints that Nikon doesn't have a compact Z-mount 24-120mm or a 70-300mm at launch? Those seem like exactly the lenses that many users would pair with a compact Z-mount body. Certainly not 70-200/f2.8s or immense, manual focus 58mm/0.95s.

And you'll note that as far as IBIS goes, I was specific to limit it to cameras that are competing in the same class. Maybe there are some people that are cross-shopping $2000 A7 IIIs and Z6s with $1300 RPs, but a lot of people are going to be looking instead at the $1500 Fuji X-T3s and thinking that the two cameras are a lot more similar than they are different. I suppose now that Fuji has given the X-H1 a $1000 discount (!!!) after less than a year, it also sits in the same price category.

Anyway, I'm not certainly saying it's a perfect camera. It's not the camera for me. It's not the camera for you (obviously!!!) But it's a good camera for a lot of people. Not everything needs to be completely black and white. Different people have different needs.
 
Last edited:

tkbslc

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,668
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
I'll challenge you to use my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 that way. I can hold onto the tripod foot all day long, especially if I have a grip attached to the foot to make it be a vertical grip. It sure sucks to handle however. There's a reason people like protrusive grips rather than slab cameras.
.

Pay attention next time you use it to the proportion of support that is coming from your left hand vs the camera grip. I think that example may prove my point rather than yours.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,988
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Correct, not very many at all. But here's the thing - I don't think the target market is going to buy very many lenses at all, period. Historically they definitely don't.

I think the better kit lens would've been the 24-240 that is under development. A more "consumer" level lens to mate with the consumer level body, and gives good reach.


Why not the bitter complaints that Nikon doesn't have a compact Z-mount 24-120mm or a 70-300mm at launch? Those seem like exactly the lenses that many users would pair with a compact Z-mount body. Certainly not 70-200/f2.8s or immense, manual focus 58mm/0.95s.

I've said this as well. Nikon has the great 24-70 f/4, 14-30 f/4, but nothing on the telephoto end. I decided to pick up the new 70-300 F-mount Nikon lens as a landscape telephoto lens that can pull double-duty on my D500's. But I really would've liked to has seen Nikon at least acknowledge the development of something in the near term.

Don't even get me started on that $6,000, manual focus 58mm lens. A complete waste of resources if you ask me...
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
Most people who buy into the Canon RP will usually own just 1 or maximum 2 lenses. The RF 24-105 is a pretty good kit lens priced @$899. Something similar in the Olympus lineup is the 12-100 f/4 Pro, a $1299 lens. And the Olympus 12-200 as we can all agree isn't a great sharp lens is $899, the same as the 24-105 Canon lens.

We keep saying Canon make expensive RF lenses and yet Olympus DON'T? Come on! Someone who buys an Olympus E-M10 Mark III can slap on the 12-200 and be done with it. And the price difference between the OMD E-M10 iii vs Canon RP is $600. It is not a long stretch at all.

And what is all this talk about new photographers not willing to buy L lenses? Perhaps some of you REALLY NEED to get off your keyboards and attend those photo meetup groups in real life with real humans! Most of you are simply out of touch; perhaps too focused and engaged being only online by yourself, because just last week I attended a meetup group with a number of younger photographers (a total of 40 of the real human beings) and they are shooting with a number of Canon full frame DSLR with a number of L lenses! In fact, one young guy in his early early 30s who just bought himself a Canon 5D Mark ii with a 16-35L and 24-105 f/4 L for a pretty good price, love his system. He didn't mind the older body, because he understood that glass is MORE important than a modern body. These younger photographers were groomed by many Youtubers who educate them that to get the best, you NEED the best glass period. Which is why Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are now making top glass. You can't get away trying to sell those cheap Sigma and Tamron like they could in the past. Very few people in our group are shooting with kit lenses. The Sony group people are shooting with Zeiss f/2.8 and f/1.4 primes! The Nikon people -- with 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 zooms. The Olympus group, including myself, are shooting with top primes and 12-40Pro and 12-100 Pro. No 14-42 kit lenses. The Pentax group -- with their top glass. Even tourists I saw during our cruise last year were shooting with more expensive glass. These people know their stuff like we know our stuff. We have the f/1.2 pro primes which we know are good and given the choice would shoot that rather than with the f/2.8 or f/1.7 primes. Same with the 12-40 Pro rather than the 12-50 softy crap.
 
Last edited:

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
And what is all this talk about new photographers not willing to buy L lenses? Perhaps some of you REALLY NEED to get off your keyboards and attend those photo meetup groups in real life with real humans! Most of you are simply out of touch; perhaps too focused and engaged being only online by yourself, because just last week I attended a meetup group with a number of younger photographers (a total of 40 of the real human beings) and they are shooting with a number of Canon full frame DSLR with a number of L lenses! In fact, one young guy in his early early 30s who just bought himself a Canon 5D Mark ii with a 16-35L and 24-105 f/4 L for a pretty good price, love his system. He didn't mind the older body, because he understood that glass is MORE important than a modern body. These younger photographers were groomed by many Youtubers who educate them that to get the best, you NEED the best glass period. Which is why Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are now making top glass. You can't get away trying to sell those cheap Sigma and Tamron like they could in the past. Very few people in our group are shooting with kit lenses. The Sony group people are shooting with Zeiss f/2.8 and f/1.4 primes! The Nikon people -- with 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 zooms. The Olympus group, including myself, are shooting with top primes and 12-40Pro and 12-100 Pro. No 14-42 kit lenses. The Pentax group -- with their top glass. Even tourists I saw during our cruise last year were shooting with more expensive glass. These people know their stuff like we know our stuff. We have the f/1.2 pro primes which we know are good and given the choice would shoot that rather than with the f/2.8 or f/1.7 primes. Same with the 12-40 Pro rather than the 12-50 softy crap.
That sure is a whole lot of anecdotes.

Want some others that prove the exact opposite point?
 

DanS

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
1,811
$1,300 body, and $2,300 prime lenses :confused:

Canon's going to do the same thing with their R that they did with EF - lock people in with their lens catalog such that people can't afford to change systems.

If I had every single M43 lens I cared to own it would look something like this.
Code:
lens                 MSRP    B&H current
Pan 12mm f/1.4       $1,298  $1,298
Oly 25mm f/1.2       $1,199  $1,099
Pan 42.5mm f/1.2     $1,598  $1,198
Oly 60mm f/2.8       $499    $499
Oly 75mm f/1.8       $899    $899
        
Pan 12-35 f/2.8 ii   $998    $898
Pan 35-100 f/2.8 ii  $1,098  $998
Pan 100-400 f/4-6.3  $1,798  $1,598
 
Total                $9,387  $8,487

If I made the same list for any FF system that $ amount would be a good deal higher.

I could easily get all of the above in one bag with room to spare, again not so likely with FF gear.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
You shoot only with kit lenses 100% of the time?
Many of my very best photos, the ones that really make people say "wow!", have been shot with a 14-140mm version I. Because it's the subject, the composition, the light, and the opportunity that are 99.9% of what matters in photography.

Us gear nerds on the Internet just love to obsess over that 0.1%, because it's fun, and we have some spare time.

It's only this year for the first time that I've picked up a "pro" zoom (Panasonic-Leica 12-60mm/f2.8-4). It's a real tug of war over whether I'm actually going to keep it or not. I'm not sure it justifies itself.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,988
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
If I had every single M43 lens I cared to own it would look something like this.

If I made the same list for any FF system that $ amount would be a good deal higher.

That's kind of my point though. Canon is making a pretty cheap body, but the majority of the lenses available for that camera are damn expensive!
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
Many of my very best photos, the ones that really make people say "wow!", have been shot with a 14-140mm version I.
It's a $697 lens; currently on sale for $597. :) My very best photos came from a 14-42X; much cheaper than your 14-140mm. :) Having said that; you probably don't attend much meetup photography groups and only use your personal opinion and experience of what you know and make it as fact.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
It's a $697 lens; currently on sale for $597. :) My very best photos came from a 14-42X; much cheaper than your 14-140mm. :) Having said that; you probably don't attend much meetup photograph groups and only use your personal opinion and experience of what you know.
It's a 9 year old lens that I bought 5 years ago for $350 CAD. You can't even buy it anymore. It's been long since replaced. It's a kit superzoom.

And you're now using a niche of a niche of a niche of people (dedicated photographers who join groups and meet up regularly in person) to try and claim that you have a broad-based knowledge of what "real users" are doing out there?

As opposed to being in the world and seeing where and how ordinary folks are using their cameras? Because that kind of experience is totally worthless?
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
It's a 9 year old lens that I bought for $350 CAD. You can't buy it anymore. It's been long since replaced.

So you're using a niche of a niche of a niche of people (dedicated photographers who join groups and meet up regularly in person) to try and claim that you have a broad-based knowledge of what "real users" are doing out there?

As opposed to being in the world and seeing where and how ordinary folks are using their cameras? Because that kind of experience is totally worthless?
Again, your personal bias. How do you know they are dedicated photographers in the meetup groups I attended since you weren't there. You are equally as biased as you claimed I am. :)
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
Again, your personal bias. How do you know they are dedicated photographers in the meetup groups I attended since you weren't there. You are equally as biased as you claimed I am. :)
Sorry, my mistake. Most of the people in your group don't own dedicated cameras? They shoot with smartphones?
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
Sorry, my mistake. Most of the people in your group don't own dedicated cameras? They shoot with smartphones?

You don't need to be a dedicated photographer to own a nice camera system. These people own good camera bodies and glass do so because they simply want to take the best pictures.

So now we have to judge people on meetup groups?!? So if you're not a good enough dedicated photographer like what you find on this forum, then you are not worthy to own a nice body and L glasses? Wow, such elitist attitude!
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,988
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
And what is all this talk about new photographers not willing to buy L lenses? Perhaps some of you REALLY NEED to get off your keyboards and attend those photo meetup groups in real life with real humans! Most of you are simply out of touch; perhaps too focused and engaged being only online by yourself, because just last week I attended a meetup group with a number of younger photographers (a total of 40 of the real human beings) and they are shooting with a number of Canon full frame DSLR with a number of L lenses! In fact, one young guy in his early early 30s who just bought himself a Canon 5D Mark ii with a 16-35L and 24-105 f/4 L for a pretty good price, love his system.

Just doing some quick research on FM:
  • Avg. 5D II price in the past month: $650
  • Avg. 24-105 L price in the past month: $400
  • Avg. 16-35 f/4 L price in the past month: $750
Obviously these prices are in USD and not CAD, but you can pick up that kit for $1,800 USD very easily.

The EOS RP + 24-105 L is $2,200, 22% more than the kit you mentioned seeing a young guy using, and that only includes one lens. The other EOS R lenses available at this time are the $3,000 28-70 f/2 zoom, $2,300 50mm f/1.2 prime, and the $500 35mm f/1.8 Macro. When Canon does release their UWA zoom lens for the EOS R system, it'll be an f/2.8 lens and likely cost at least as much as the $2,200 EF version currently on the market.

The bottom line is that even though the RP is a cheap camera, the EOS R system is not remotely close to being budget friendly because of the native lens prices. The gentleman you saw at your camera club got all of his gear for ~20% less than what an EOS RP + native kit lens costs, and he had an UWA zoom lens as well.

I'm not saying that new photographers won't by L lenses. I'm saying that they're likely not going to be buying $2,000 or $3,000 L lenses.
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
You don't need to be a dedicated photographer to own a nice camera system. These people own good camera bodies and glass do so because they simply want to take the best pictures.

So now we have to judge people on meetup groups?!? So if you're not a good enough dedicated photographer like what you find on this forum, then you are not worthy to own a nice body and L glasses? Wow, such elitist attitude!
Cripes, man!

I was actually doing the opposite, and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt - if you have a dedicated camera that you like shooting, I consider you a dedicated photographer. You're the one that is doing the absurdist gatekeeping.

What a ridiculous conversation.
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
Just doing some quick research on FM:
  • Avg. 5D II price in the past month: $650
  • Avg. 24-105 L price in the past month: $400
  • Avg. 16-35 f/4 L price in the past month: $750
Obviously these prices are in USD and not CAD, but you can pick up that kit for $1,800 USD very easily.

The EOS RP + 24-105 L is $2,200, 22% more than the kit you mentioned seeing a young guy using, and that only includes one lens. The other EOS R lenses available at this time are the $3,000 28-70 f/2 zoom, $2,300 50mm f/1.2 prime, and the $500 35mm f/1.8 Macro. When Canon does release their UWA zoom lens for the EOS R system, it'll be an f/2.8 lens and likely cost at least as much as the $2,200 EF version currently on the market.

The bottom line is that even though the RP is a cheap camera, the EOS R system is not remotely close to being budget friendly because of the native lens prices. The gentleman you saw at your camera club got all of his gear for ~20% less than what an EOS RP + native kit lens costs, and he had an UWA zoom lens as well.

Very true; but that young guy can add the RP in the future. The group has about 50% of the Canon users so the first wave of buyers would probably come from them and the young guy if he so decides to add the RP into the kit as the RP now comes with the EF adapter. But I suspect the next wave would be with the RP and the 24-200 kit lens coming in later in 2019. That is probably what makes the RP an all in 1 full frame travel kit. The R system would probably make more sense as soon as the higher end models with IBIS come into play, as you need those newer RF lenses to take advantage of any resolution bump and performance needed from the newer RF bodies.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom