gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications | |
bernardl wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
It sounds like a fine, functional camera, and I think the price is not out of line with expectations given the price of its predecessor and the effects of inflation. However…
For years one of my arguments against “switching” has gone like this: If you use Brand A right now and you just saw Brand B come out with a new thing that has more advanced features, you might be tempted to jump to Brand B. But typically every new introduction by any brand exceeds the feature set of its competition, and when Brand A comes out with its next upgrade it will likely exceed the capabilities of Brand B again. Over time, it is generally best to stick wifraid th one brand.”
I’m afraid that, at least at first appearance, Canon may be proving me wrong wis the R5II and probably the R1. Both seem like they more or less almost catch up with the older models of the other brands, but they certainly don’t seem to move things forward significantly if at all.
If anyone can remember my post over the years (yeah, can’t count on that…) I have long been skeptical that the there was much reason to move away from Canon even if other brands seemed to have a few temporary advantages. Now I’m not so sure. Perhaps I’m wrong, but at this point, at least when it comes to camera bodies, Canon is languishing somewhere in the range between “about as good as” and “consistently behind” the alternatives.
Disappointed.
Isn’t the gap even larger with lenses?
Especially for wildlife I would argue, which is one of the areas where 35mm remains the best option.
Landscape/still/architecture/… is obviously owned by Fuji GFX these days, no 35mm camera comes close in terms of resolution and lenses. Their 20-35mm f4 is way better than any Nikon/Sony/Canon wide lens, so is their 120mm f4, not to mention their new T/S lenses.
I feel like Canon lenses are fine, and the RF series seems to both break some new ground and maintain or enhance optical and functional quality in most ways. There are — as with any brand — a few disappointments perhaps, but there are a lot of good options, too.
I have a more nuanced view of the GFX alternative. The 100MP sensors are quite good for many purposes. The lenses that Fujifilm produces for the system are optically very good from all reports. (I’ve experimented with one of the bodies and one lens, and I have friends/colleagues who use the system.)
But from my perspective there are some concerns still. Fujifilm could address them, but so far, no go:
1. Leaving aside the qualty of the G system lenses, I’m not really satisfied with the range so far available. I know some are, and I’m glad for them, but as a person who relies on zoom lenses from 16mm to 400mm for landscape photography, I’m disappointed that Fujifilm hasn’t produced something liek a 200-400 or 200-500 zoom. (The interest in such things is easy to deduce in Fujifilm forums — just look at the number of people settling for adapting things like the EF 100-400.)
2. In addition, the relationships between the Fujifilm zooms is odd. If you want to cover (just!) the 20mm-200mm range with no gaps you will need to buy four lenses: 20-35, 35–70 or 32-64, 45-100, 100-200. Some will tell you that Fujifilm has no choice since “MF lenses can’t have wide focal length ranges.” But the 33x44 sensor lies midway between FF and the 645, so they could stretch these ranges for better coverage. But they stick with the old-school film MF approach.
The GFX option can be a really great one if it fits, and there’s no hat question it does fit for a number of photographers. For example, those moving “down” from tradition MF and LF film don’t see these things as limitations, and they see the smaller system size as a significant plus. But those of us used to shooting excellent and flexible FF systems will find some issues.
I’ve been holding off on updating from my excellent 5DsR and EF lens system for a long time now. It works really well for landscape photography still. I’m going back and forth between accepting the 45MP Canon offerings, moving to the now-excellent Sony system, or moving to GFX and resolving to adapt some lenses. At the current moment, I’d say that the Sony option is probably the most appealing in my situation, with the GFX option in second place, and Canon now firmly bringing up the rear.
(And, yes, for me FF remains the best option for wildlife, something I photograph every winter. That’s a negative on the GFX system for sure, though I have some other system options to consider.)
But enough about me… ;-)
|
