You seem to believe Sony cameras are included in the Imaging & Sensing Solutions division, but you’re wrong.
First you say it , “…isn’t available on Canon at all.” When proven wrong, then you say ‘it’s heavier’.
I guess you’ve never heard of competitive intelligence?
Exactly. A tempest in a teapot. I seem to be repeating myself.
Same in the US. The consumer RF zoom trinity I keep mentioning (15-30, 24-105, 100-400) lists for $1600, but at least one of them is nearly always discounted. That trio costs $1450 today, but if you’d bought each lens at the right time over the past few months you’d have paid $1300 total.
I haven't paid attention to these particular lenses, but Canon sometimes has a discount on refurbished lenses and recently both B&H and KEH had discounts on used lenses. So, it's likely if you accept the fact that most lenses can last a very long time and you do have the opportunity to return a lens, it's a very good opportunity to save even more.
The problem is part of a general one of the polarization of society and people moving to the extremes and unable to consider the others point of view. And it is not a new problem of today. Shakespeare wrote 5 centuries ago in Romeo and Juliet, "A plague on both your houses" in the aftermath of a feud.
Not even for people interested in long lens work? The RF system offers a pretty comprehensive set of telephoto primes and zooms, to suit a range of budgets.
Ok. I wasn't aware of that. But they only give you sales figure, which is not a good metric of how business is doing. Plus you can't compare financials prepared in different accounting principles.
Their financials clearly states that the increase in revenue is due to steady sales of R62, R7, and R10.
So clueless. How do you not get that the 100-500 is f/7.1 at the long end and thus is unusable? If only it was a 200-600 that was f/6.3 at the long end, it would be perfect. Canon is clearly behind.
I should have been more clear that I was referring to native mount lenses. Of which alternative options for those that need and want them don’t exist on the RF mount at the moment. Earlier I was with a Canon user who was using an R6 with an adapted Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art and it was terribly front heavy. My point about the weight is perfectly valid, half as light is not a small amount.
If the 200-600/6.3 weighed the same as the 100-500/7.1 and also had a mfd of ~1m, it would be getting closer to perfect. Better still, if it weighed the same as the RF 100-400/8, that would clinch it.So clueless. How do you not get that the 100-500 is f/7.1 at the long end and thus is unusable? If only it was a 200-600 that was f/6.3 at the long end, it would be perfect. Canon is clearly behind.
not quite sure what you mean here.. I only bought the R5 body because the EF lenses I had (investment) would work. I even tested ahead that my key Sigma EF lenses (20mm and 35 mm ART primes and 150-600C) would work on this (and some native canon lenses like 180L macro).. or it'd have been a no go. Canon has had a large array of 3rd party lenses, and they do work via EF adapter, so while it was wrong, it is a fairly natural assumption that they'd likely continue.. didn't quite expect them to be as tight on control beyond first year or two, especially how wishy washy their answers were and still are.
I really dig the Sigma 20mm 1.4Art.. its superb for taking band pictures in low light. Surprisingly low distortion if you keep it mostly level.
this is a well known rumor site for all things Canon. Various well known youtube reviewers reference this site for information on where Canon is going, so logic would dictate that Canon may check it from time to time.
From my perspective once we are talking adapters we are no longer constrained to Canon. I can get capable EF adapters for almost every competing brand, if the answer is "use an adapter" I no longer have a reason to consider Canon primarily when there are others I can bring my EF lenses to as well as have better native options.
Perhaps I shouldn't have made that sound absolute. For certain types of work they still make sense although I'd add that I'm not certain they are notably beyond Sony or Nikon, but if that is the primary use case Canon can make a lot of sense. But not many photographers do only a single type of photography, and for me it's about crop sensor shooting and the system there is basically a disaster compared to the competition.
I fully agree with you here. I'm super unclear why people keep making business arguments as though those are supposed to sway us *from our needs as photographers*. They do not. I do not honestly care the business reasons. I could guess those when the decisions were first made. I am a customer. I do not worship brands. Business decisions are irrelevant to me unless they impact my ability to take good photographs at a competitive price. The third party lens decision does, and it's a fact that had I waited for the R7 and bought into RF-S I would have fewer high quality shots and fewer options for shots going forward due to how incomplete and expensive the mount is. I take shots with the Viltrox 75mm that people find extremely striking, there is no comparison to that lens on Canon and they won't let it on their mount. Meanwhile it's being celebrated now that it has come to Nikon and Sony (after Fuji). The same is true of their new 27mm f/1.2.
It's really interesting how our opinions can differ so much - for me, the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art on the EOS R5 (and on the EOS R and on the EOS R6 Mark II, and also on the EOS R6 that you mention, which I no longer have) is really well balanced, it feels great in my hand, and the full range of Canon EF-EOS R adapters even give a significant advantage when using EF lenses over the native RF lenses used on those same bodies. I just enjoy having so many different options with Canon. Given that I use the advantages of all three types of adapters to a good extent, I have no intention of going to any RF lens at the moment.
That's hilarious considering you claimed you had outgrown the M50, and are upset that you couldn't use the EF-M lenses on an RF body enough to waste all this time here on your posting crusade. We all know that EF lenses are accepted to work best on an RF body and the quality of a lens is more important than the body. Then again, you literarily have never noticed how many Fuji X lenses are back ordered or require special ordering. I'm not sure if it's ignorance from someone that claims that financial data is an unimportant strawman's arguments and doesn't seem to know about Sony's abandoned products or his own strawman argument.
