johnctharp wrote:
Massively increasing capabilities while dealing with tariffs and inflation, and managing to keep the price the same, isn't 'reasonable' to you?
Well sure. EF stuff works even better!
Everyone has a different definition of "reasonable".
danski0224 wrote:
Closed or not, a new RF Canon is pretty expensive IMO. The R5 MkII is currently "on sale" for $3,899.00 at Canon USA. Surprisingly, that was the same price of a 5DSR at release, but I will not call the R5 MkII price "reasonable".
As a hobbyist, it has become too expensive to keep up. I got my 5DSR when they were steeply discounted at nearly 1/2 off, and replacing EF lenses with RF lenses is also a crazy expensive option.
Prices on EF stuff keeps dropping, so there's no point in dumping it- the stuff still works just fine.
Last time I checked (a few months ago) the inflation-adjusted cost of the R5ii was LOWER than the cost of the original 5D model.
Over time, while the list prices for cameras have risen, they have not kept pace with inflation, and it likely costs you a smaller percentage of your annual income to buy the comparable camera today, believe it or not.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Last time I checked (a few months ago) the inflation-adjusted cost of the R5ii was LOWER than the cost of the original 5D model.
Over time, while the list prices for cameras have risen, they have not kept pace with inflation, and it likely costs you a smaller percentage of your annual income to buy the comparable camera today, believe it or not.
So many people's incomes haven't kept up with inflation over the last few decades though. Look at how much stuff the middle class is getting priced out of.
Mike_5D wrote:
So many people's incomes haven't kept up with inflation over the last few decades though. Look at how much stuff the middle class is getting priced out of.
Yeah, pretty much all the same stuff I was priced out of until the early 2000's at which time I became fully an empty nester and started to have some disposable income.
I paid $3500 for an EOS 5D in 2006—serious coin back in the day. I didn’t care much for the camera, but it was better than my just as expensive EOS 10D I bought in 2003. Two decades hence, the R5 MK II is a lot more affordable relative to typical salaries, albeit certainly not inexpensive. But it gives you a lot more camera for your money.
Mike_5D wrote:
So many people's incomes haven't kept up with inflation over the last few decades though. Look at how much stuff the middle class is getting priced out of.
Yes, if you have kept up with inflation or nearly kept up with inflation, it's smaller as a percentage of your income, but for so many people you are 100% right. It's the K-shaped economy, a buzzword that's gained traction recently.
Caleb Williams wrote:
Yes, if you have kept up with inflation or nearly kept up with inflation, it's smaller as a percentage of your income, but for so many people you are 100% right. It's the K-shaped economy, a buzzword that's gained traction recently.
I hadn't heard of the K shaped economy, but I'm definitely experiencing it since covid. It feels like everything is being priced for the 10% and everyone else can get F'ed. A simple example is the pumpkin patch I used to go to. In addition to acres of pumpkins in actual fields, they have wagon rides, a corn maze, petting zoo, etc. Before covid, it was maybe $5 to get in. Extras were extra. Since covid, it became reservation-only and flat rate. Parking extra on the weekends. So instead of getting in cheap, getting some pictures of the kids running around a pumpkin patch in golden hour, and choosing what extras to pay for, it's like a $150 commitment. We haven't been since 2023. I miss the pictures, but damn. It's not like $150 would break me, but you multiply that pretty much every other aspect of life and you gotta draw the line somewhere.
I paid $1k for a 40D ($999) in mid 2008. The r50 is probably better overall, more mp, better af etc $679 on sale now, before inflation so cameras are cheaper today overall.
I quit complaining about prices seeing $60k used pickup while on here, the jeep on the TV ad cost up to $100+k. People buy mules, side by sides, at Lowes easy to spend $10k+. But, I'm not buying those, either
But, one local holiday season event doubled to $30 apiece, seems like it used to be $15 (maybeseveral years ago?) a relative bought the tickets but $120 for 4 of us that went, idk, I probably would have done something else. Doesn't do much good to have cheaper cameras if you spent elsewhere, maybe even had to
Its the same here in the UK camera gear costs roughly what it always has and cameras now are incredible
Day to day living costs here have really gone up here, we are retired on a fixed income, we are ok but things like a family day out are really expensive here too
We were able to go to Zambia a couple of weeks ago but had to budget carefully during the year to afford, not complaining or anything
350lcpete wrote:
I have had Canon for a long time and am perfectly happy with my R5 but there isn’t an RF equivalent fot the 2 lenses that mostly I use, an old Sigma 150 macro, non OS and 300 2.8 mk2
To be honest I am surprised that Canon haven’t brought out a recent longer macro lens than 100mm, I guess there isn’t a market for it
The Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM is one of their finest. If you can find one buy it while they are still cheap and few realize how incredible it is.
comotionfilms wrote:
For those complaining about the weight of the z9, have you actually shot with one? It feels perfect in the hand, and it’s such a joy to shoot. I’ve shot canon since the EOS film days, but I’d gladly swap my r5 for a z9, honestly. I wouldn’t carry it around when walking around with my kids, but I’ve got other cameras for that.
I don’t see the point in a whole Nikon vs Canon thread, but trashing Nikon because the z9 is heavy is just a strange.
Did you actually shoot with the Canon R1 the direct competitor to the R9?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Can I ask what your views are on the 180 macro please? I have the 100Lis which on crop gives 160mm equivalent. However I hear the 180 highly regarded… Can I ask your views please??
Sorry for detailing the thread
I don't shoot crop but the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 is well worth the investment for FF. It is one of their best performing lenses IMHO. I would get one before folks realize how excellent this lens is.
My favorite macro for Canon of all time: Voigtlaender 125 mm f/2.5 Macro Apo-Lanthar in Canon mount.
They are different lenses and one can't replace the other. I have a bunch of other macro lenses - Zeiss, Leica, Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon, etc. But the versatility of these two lenses is hard to resist.
I've not tested the Sony options. I can't fit their cameras in my hands By all accounts an excellent system just not for people like me.
netexpress wrote:
I don't shoot crop but the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 is well worth the investment for FF. It is one of their best performing lenses IMHO. I would get one before folks realize how excellent this lens is.
My favorite macro for Canon of all time: Voigtlaender 125 mm f/2.5 Macro Apo-Lanthar in Canon mount.
They are different lenses and one can't replace the other. I have a bunch of other macro lenses - Zeiss, Leica, Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon, etc. But the versatility of these two lenses is hard to resist.
I've not tested the Sony options. I can't fit their cameras in my hands By all accounts an excellent system just not for people like me.
netexpress wrote:
I don't shoot crop but the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 is well worth the investment for FF. It is one of their best performing lenses IMHO. I would get one before folks realize how excellent this lens is.
My favorite macro for Canon of all time: Voigtlaender 125 mm f/2.5 Macro Apo-Lanthar in Canon mount.
They are different lenses and one can't replace the other. I have a bunch of other macro lenses - Zeiss, Leica, Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon, etc. But the versatility of these two lenses is hard to resist.
I've not tested the Sony options. I can't fit their cameras in my hands By all accounts an excellent system just not for people like me.
Under 125mm Nikon macro IMHO is much better than Canon for Macro product photography. Their 105 and 60 macro in FF are just excellent. I'm talking the whole package with ease of use, etc. Not like the other brands didn't do better in a studio environment but the costs... Man I do love the color of Leica and the contrast of Zeiss and Hasselblad.But for production work Nikon was the best in F mount. Their new mirrorless macro lenses I have not tested. Canon has a superior system overall IMHO. So I am sticking with Canon. But a D850 and a couple of Macro 105 and 60 macro lenses can go a long way. Canon with the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 and Voigtlaender 125 mm f/2.5 Macro Apo-Lanthar in Canon mount - just do it. But if you have the time visit the Zeiss and Leica adapted lenses.
comotionfilms wrote:
For those complaining about the weight of the z9, have you actually shot with one? It feels perfect in the hand, and it’s such a joy to shoot. I’ve shot canon since the EOS film days, but I’d gladly swap my r5 for a z9, honestly. I wouldn’t carry it around when walking around with my kids, but I’ve got other cameras for that.
netexpress wrote:
Did you actually shoot with the Canon R1 the direct competitor to the R9?
My impression when I first shot with an R1: It feels perfect in the hand, and it’s such a joy to shoot. I’ve shot canon since the EOS film days, and it's the best camera I've ever used. Period.
Well, Canon camera....
But for the category it is in, the R1 is the best I've ever used.
I'm sure the Z9 is great, but like any camera, it's missing a few features found in the competition. And the prism/EVF hump is fugly! Not sure what Nikon's famed designers were thinking with that EVF hump shape found on many Nikon mirrorless...
rscheffler wrote:
My impression when I first shot with an R1: It feels perfect in the hand, and it’s such a joy to shoot. I’ve shot canon since the EOS film days, and it's the best camera I've ever used. Period.
Well, Canon camera....
But for the category it is in, the R1 is the best I've ever used.
I'm sure the Z9 is great, but like any camera, it's missing a few features found in the competition. And the prism/EVF hump is fugly! Not sure what Nikon's famed designers were thinking with that EVF hump shape found on many Nikon mirrorless...
100% the R1 is the best! I hope Nikon comes out with something that competes with it. I have a lot of Nikon glass. But I'm all in on Canon RF. I think I'm in a good place.
For those who have shot with the EOS R1 and R3: which do you prefer ergonomically?
I do rather like the more compact size of the R3 vs. the 1DX Mark IIs I used to use. The R1 seems to be a bit larger, and I am wondering if that is a detriment or a not?
Other than size, are there any control point differences of note?
garyvot wrote:
For those who have shot with the EOS R1 and R3: which do you prefer ergonomically?
I do rather like the more compact size of the R3 vs. the 1DX Mark IIs I used to use. The R1 seems to be a bit larger, and I am wondering if that is a detriment or a not?
Other than size, are there any control point differences of note?
I still have both although the R3 is now officially my son's, as life goes. To be honest I can't tell a real difference ergonomically at all, switching from one to the other felt completely intuitive and not an issue at all. Yes The R1 is a bit bigger but not in a way that I would think about after a few seconds.
From a usage perspective, the only thing I notice all the time is the two stage AF-ON button. It is helpful, and I'm pretty sure I'm not using it to the max.
By all accounts an excellent system just not for people like me.