it would make alot of sense, that would make it around the same size as the V1.
which brings me to the question on the V1 and RV, the square to the body shutter button.
versus like here on the M6, where it's angled down.
Upvote
0
Canon EOS RV Image Leaks Out: The Small Mirrorless We Have Been Wanting
- Thread starter Richard CN
- Start date
it would make alot of sense, that would make it around the same size as the V1.
which brings me to the question on the V1 and RV, the square to the body shutter button.
versus like here on the M6, where it's angled down.
It really seems like Canon is revamping its APS-C and Powershot line, which is a good thing. I can´t tell at all if I'm interested in these cameras or lenses until I actually get to hold one in my hands and do test shots. With smaller cameras the ergonomics get really tricky imho and one slight detail might ruin it for some people. Also, Canon is in need of good/ great lenses for these small cameras. I've tested and shot with the RF-S 10-18mm and RF 18-45mm on a R50/ R10 and those lenses basically kept me from purchasing the camera. Ergonomics are horrible and the 18-45mm lens just doesn't cut it with me. Starting at F4.5 and having f6.3 at 45mm? Whew, that really killed it for me...
Since I´m still looking for a small and light setup, I'll be patient and curious and see what Canon brings to the table.
Btw, I hope Canon releases this camera in black. Absolutely don´t like the white or silver color on it.
Since I´m still looking for a small and light setup, I'll be patient and curious and see what Canon brings to the table.
Btw, I hope Canon releases this camera in black. Absolutely don´t like the white or silver color on it.
Upvote
0
josephandrews222
I Shot the Sheriff, but I Did Not Shoot the Deputy
No snark intended here: what exactly don't you like about the RF-S 10-18?
And the 18-45?
Upvote
0
This looks in line with what Canon did with the 200D and M200, they made a white version with silver lenses.
I know people want a camera like this but it seems strange to have another video camera right after announcing the V1, which is basically just a smaller fixed lens version of this.
Upvote
0
Speaking only for myself: for my focal length / aperture preferences and usage habits, the RF-S 18-45 is a step backward from the EF-M 15-45, and the RF-S 10-18 is a step backward from the EF-M 11-22. Canon would have sold at least one RF-S body to me by now, and probably two, if they had simply ported the EF-M lenses to RF-S. (And don't get me started on the missing RF-S 22/2.) Instead, I've stuck with my M50's.
BTW, I also have the Nikkor Z DX 16-50, which is the best inexpensive normal-range kit zoom I've owned. It's pretty embarrassing that Canon cannot, or has chosen not to, produce a compact, normal-range kit zoom for RF-S that is competitive in specification and performance, after Nikon has shown what can be done.
Upvote
0
josephandrews222
I Shot the Sheriff, but I Did Not Shoot the Deputy
A relevant link here:
Comparison of RF-S 10-18 with EF-M 11-22: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
I present this link for fairness purposes--I may be the biggest honk for the EF-M 11-22 out there.
Anyway, I'm headed here in a few days:
007 Science
Discover how the James Bond moviemakers harness scientific thinking to craft 007’s iconic gadgets and vehicles, and employ physics, chemistry, engineering and mathematics to create thrilling stunts and action sequences. A world-premiere exhibit at the Griffin Museum of Science and Industry.
www.msichicago.org
It will be my second visit, and this time I'm including some of my 'best' gear (instead of just an iPhone), because the selection of authentic Bond trinkets (including actual cars?!) is wonderful.
My 'best' gear includes the M6MkII/11-22 combination (sort of as back-up)...with R5MkII + various lenses up first.
So interesting to read here on CR that photographers still use their Ms.
Upvote
0
What's to like on the 18-45? A horrible replacement of the EF-M 15-45. Not wide enough, dark, cheap plastic and nothing special optically.
Upvote
0
while I don't like the ergonomics on the R50, but found the M lineup fine - different strokes for different people.
canon usually has two colors if the camera is in white.
not sure what your issue was with the 10-18, it's incredibly small for it's focal range.
Upvote
0
If you didn't like the ergonomics of an R50, I'm pretty sure you won't like this new camera.
And agreed, the new kit lenses are Canon's new cripple hammer to motivate you to buy more expensive lenses (while they don't even have a good RF replacement). At this rate, I expect one of the next kit lenses to be a lens cap with a hole in the middle.
Upvote
0
Yeah, how about a crossover concept with the other thread on Canon's forthcoming 'retro' camera?
Upvote
0
Excuse me for being imprecise. The "ergonomics are horrible" part was referring to the two lenses I mentioned. I actually liked the R50 (just missing a joystick) and R10 (love the joystick) but the two lenses killed it for me.
Upvote
0
The RF-S 10-18mm has good IQ and the f-numbers are fine for a UWA lens unless you´d like to take night shots or photograph in low light. I don´t like the build quality though. The plastic feels really cheap and not durable. Furthermore, the two copies I tested, it was hard/ very fiddly to use the control ring. Plus, since it is very small, I'd often turn the control ring while I was zooming. Those were my main issue with the horrible ergonomics on this lens.
For the 18-45mm, I found the ergonomics to be troublesome as well. Furthermore, Canon had a EF-S version with better F-numbers and a EF-M version that is 3mm wider, but Canon somehow decided to ditch those two and come up with a lens which is "worse" in comparison to either one. I know, these two lenses are all about "size", but I as pointed out, the small size does become an issue (for some) and I don´t feel like the advantage justifies the loss of aperture or focal length at the wide end, particularly because the other two lenses weren't extremely large in comparison.
I´m absolutely not opposed to f7.1 or f8, but it really has to make sense. With the RF 100-500mm and RF100-400mm I´ll gladly take f7.1 and f8 for a smaller lens or more reach, but f6.3 to top out a zoom lens at 45mm? Honestly, no, it really doesn't make sense to me and it nothing I´d ever appreciate. Going from F4.5 to F6.3 in the 18-45mm zoom range is just bad. While with the UWA it is ok imo because one mainly uses it for landscapes. The 18-45mm focal length is typically one where hobbyists also take pictures of family and friends while traveling and F6.3 just doesn't appeal to me for taking pics of people.
I know, the lenses will appeal to a lot of people, they just don't do it for me. Maybe, my hands are too big or my motor skills are not developed enough to handle those lenses properly
but I think that some people here do agree.If Canon comes up with in my opinion "reasonable" lenses for APS-C, I´d gladly purchase a R50/ R10 or whatever camera they are coming up with this year. Until then, it is a "no thank you". I´ll be looking elsewhere for a lighter camera (as of now, I´m still eyeing the R8... but no joystick for over 1 k €...grrh)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I would imagine that it also has a tripod mount on the bottom but we will have to wait and see.
Upvote
0
