JohnDizzo15 wrote:
@EB-1@ not sure if you were referring to the Voigt. But if so, it’s definitely not a $400 lens.
I'm not sure who that is since the ReQuote function is dead now.
I was talking about the CR rumored price for the 45/1.2, approximately before the extra taxes.
rscheffler wrote:
But I'd very likely pay CAD 3900 for a stacked sensor R6III.
Cliff L. wrote:
You'll be able to buy an R5 II for CAD $5200 soon, so an R6 III would have to be pretty amazing (and have a stacked sensor) to get me to pay $3900 (although it sounds like there may be some attractive lens bundles offered with the new camera...)
Probably not lenses I need or want.
If there was an interesting combo with one or both of the Z zooms, then maybe, but it's really the camera's still photo feature set that will pull the trigger (or not) for me. It feels like it's going to be more of a hybrid-focused camera, though here too I'm not sure what it will uniquely offer compared to the R5II, if the price won't be significantly different.
rscheffler wrote:
. It feels like it's going to be more of a hybrid-focused camera
That's... every camera that isn't a Leica rangefinder these days. Everything that makes a mirrorless camera good for stills also makes it good for video. A little extra firmware isn't going to hurt stills-only shooters, sometimes they even lock it behind it's own mode!
It's more reasonable to go from the original R6 to the MK III than from the MK II to MK III. 32MP is quite usefully more than 20MP.
Presumably the menu and control options are also more like the R5 II than the more archaic R5/R6.
The main question I have is about the R6 III sensor noise. It's a little too pricey to buy for no purpose.
EB-1 wrote:
It's more reasonable to go from the original R6 to the MK III than from the MK II to MK III. 32MP is quite usefully more than 20MP.
Presumably the menu and control options are also more like the R5 II than the more archaic R5/R6.
The main question I have is about the R6 III sensor noise. It's a little too pricey to buy for no purpose.
EBH
I also opted to stay with my ‘archaic’ R5 because I didn’t see practical improvements for me on its successor either. I did upgrade from the R6 to the R6II. Nowadays, no matter what brand, GAS hardly ever strikes with upgrades. I really don’t need more speed, resolution or whatever they offer. And video isn’t my thing.
So it is announced, everything we would expect, I guess. I am sure the AF will be class-leading and the sensor performance will best Sony now 4 years old (or is it 3?) sensor from the a7IV & a7CII. But I wish they would have upgraded the EVF and LCD to go with the rest of the improvements - I mean, how much money did they save on doing that.
I recently picked up a Nikon Z6 III, knowing that this camera was around the corner. It basically comes down to price/value - the Nikon Z6 III with their excellent Z 24-120/4 comes in around 3100-3200 EURO here in Europe (perhaps less in Eastern Europe) while the R6 III will cost 2900 EUR for the body and 4100 EUR kit with the RF 24-105/4 (which I like less).
If Canon would open up their lens mount for Tamron, Sigma, Viltrox, etc, I would be back shooting Canon again. Until then, my usecase and budget is fine with a 24 MP kit.
The first review of the 45mm lens is in. All I can say is... ew. Was the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 also that soft at wide apertures? Well, at least this one is 1/3 the price. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-45mm-F1-2-STM-Lens.aspx
More or less sharp in the center by f/4.0
Cross-frame sharpness kinda gets there by f/8.0. Kinda.
Huge vignetting (which, to be fair, does seem to clear up on stopping down a few stops, unlike many ML lenses).
Distortion is reported to be so bad that the correction can't be turned off.
The other aberrations - you name it, this lens has oodles of these.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
The first review of the 45mm lens is in. All I can say is... ew. Was the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 also that soft at wide apertures? Well, at least this one is 1/3 the price. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-45mm-F1-2-STM-Lens.aspx
More or less sharp in the center by f/4.0
Cross-frame sharpness kinda gets there by f/8.0. Kinda.
Huge vignetting (which, to be fair, does seem to clear up on stopping down a few stops, unlike many ML lenses).
Distortion is reported to be so bad that the correction can't be turned off.
The other aberrations - you name it, this lens has oodles of these.
Pretty much as expected.
Wow, that 45/1.2 is amazingly aberrant. You can compare the EF 50/1.2 on TDP also.
The RF 50/1.2 looks great compared to both of them.
EB-1 wrote:
Wow, that 45/1.2 is amazingly aberrant. You can compare the EF 50/1.2 on TDP also.
The RF 50/1.2 looks great compared to both of them.
EBH
Good call - they seem pretty similar, but the CA are differently colored? If anything the new 45 looks a smidge better to me.
Again, at 1/3 the price, it's hard to complain (though of course I would not touch either with a ten foot pole, but that's me).
jrhoffman75 wrote:
Canon is relying on digital correction on some of its lower price lenses. Cut costs by eliminating corrective lens elements.
It's far more than that. Look at the MTF. And why does it need to be like that? There are plenty of fast normal lenses from 3rd parties that are not. Obviously Canon wanted some bad IQ for the neuralgic market since the 3rd party lenses are practically excluded. I really thought it would better than it is, but not great
EB-1 wrote:
How do you see without the EVF, use the rear display?
EBH
Its the same EVF thats in the current R6mk2-
They should have upgraded this to make a more compelling package- Espcially at the new price point. Its an entry level EVF in a mid tier powerhouse of a camera-
Big miss in my opinion.
The rest of the camera looks great but nothing that would be worth upgrading or moving into Canon for.
