« Question | Main | Karl Lagerfeld 1933–2019 »

Monday, 18 February 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mike you didn't mention the option of mounting any number of 'low end' {ie. cheap) EF lenses via one of the three adapters.

PS. Indeed I believe the RP is available with the basic adapter as a kit.

much ado being made about the lack of IBIS in the new Canon bodies, and the new Fuji bodies.... and here I am with a 2-generation (maybe 3?)- old Pentax K-3 that gives every lens shake reduction (SR), from the 50-year-old Takumar on one body, to the latest Limited lens...

I think what Mike & others have said is accurate.
Canon has made a super easy entry point to the R system.
I just noticed there are package deals including the adapter so that anyone with a Canon FF Kit zoom, or the tiny 50/1.8 or the truly excellent 40mm f/2.8 (which you can buy for $100 bucks) is good to go.

They are going after volume, with a very respectable (if not state of the art) feature set . They are leveraging the 100 million Canon lenses kicking around out there.
While t doesn't excite ME, or probably many others around here, if it performs as advertised, it just might be a smarter offering than it first appears.
We have enjoyed an embarassment of riches for a decade, if the market continues to contract, this may be what the future looks like--High volume cameras , and much more expensive elite cameras.

The EOS RP has roughly the same specs as the five year old Sony A7 which is still available new for $798, so I'm not sure why the EOS RP is suppose to be ushering in a new era of afforable FF mirrorless cameras. I think the Fuji 16mm f/2.8 lens is a great choice.

The lack of 24fps on 1080 video has video guys up in arms because it does seem very arbitrary.

I'm not immersed in the Canon world, but it seems to me that their M mirrorless system would have been a good place to attract birders and maybe action photographers in the way that the Nikon 1 system could have done had it survived. But given the body features and lenses that have been released for the Canon M system so far, I guess they weren't interested in that.

The 16mm lens should be Fujimarit, or Fujirit. Leica Summicron lenses are all f2.0. Leica f2.8 lenses were Elmarits.

For years I mainly used Nikon F with a 24MmmF/2.8, so this fuji 16mm should appeal to me but if the DPReview samples are anything to go by, it's been built down to a price, looks pretty poor to me...

Wouldn't an f2.8 Fuji be a Fujarit?

The Fujinon XF16mm F2.8 R WR lens is a very sensitive addition to the Fujifilm X-mount line-up. As I have said years ago the Fujifilm X-Mount series represent the real digital successor of the Leica M and R analog series. As a previous M 4P, M 6 and R4 user, I have found with the Fujifilm X-E and X-T models the same joy of doing photography (Shutter speed & aperture control dials and manual focusing at will).
And forget please that annoying about pseudo "Full-Frame" saga!

There are a few sharp, fast (f/1.8) lens remaining for full-frame cameras, such as the various Pentax Limited series lenses. Basically, you're accepting screw-drive auto-focus and f/1.8 apertures in the 31/1.8, 43/1.8/, and 77/1.8 lenses as the trade-off for very compact but capable optics. I personally like the trade-off but it's not for everyone in this era of massive two pound f/1.4 behemoths with supercharged auto-focus and enough internal circuitry to launch Apollo moon shots. FF does not inherently equate to great bulk.

"Canon had a whole slew of good but small and cheap SLR lenses you could stick on it. I'm left wondering what the point of a small, light, inexpensive body is when you're more or less obligated to buy large, heavy, expensive lenses to put on it."

I guess people who value those things have moved to other systems: M43, Fuji, Sony e-mount (I've been shooting an a6500). Who are Canon's remaining customers? The ones who want large, heavy, and expensive, as those of us who want something else, like small, light, inexpensive have moved elsewhere—as have those of us who value video.

May I respectfully (this is TOP, after all) disagree with John W? FF does not necessarily equal large lenses - see Leica M, Zeiss's manual focus primes for Sony EF, Nikon D series primes, etc. - it only equals large if the lenses are also to be particularly complex / fast / autofocus / stabilised, etc. As I really don't see the point of mirrorless if the size reduction benefit in the camera is not matched by size reductions in the lens - yes, I'm looking at you Nikon Z primes - I raised the point with my local Nikon pro rep (who happens to be a neighbour and friend); she insisted (quite vehemently, if I may say so) that the two available Z7 primes (35 mm and 50 mm, f 1.8) were both tiny and very light, notwithstanding (or perhaps because of) my using the "L" word. Looks like I'll either be adapting M lenses to the Z mount or buying a Sony.

“When the original Digital Rebel was introduced 16 years ago (can it really have been that long?)”
That was my first DSLR, and time does fly! I just realized that upgrade my camera every 4 years and with the exception of the jump to full frame I tried to get twice the resolution.6-10-18-20Mp oguess is time to get a 40Mp camera!

“There's really only one answer...it's so people can buy a "temporary" body as they begin to acquire lenses...”

I suspect you put more thought into it than Canon does.

I was at a camera show and saw a Sony A7R with a G lens on it. I picked it up to take a look at it. The light body with the heavy lens on front almost fell out of my hands. I could only wonder how long the lens mount would last, or how long one's wrist would last if hand held. I was no longer interested in the A7R or any camera that doesn't have some level of camera/lens balance.

Well then, I didn't start this, but 'a full-frame body with reasonably light, easy-to-handle lenses...': may I humbly suggest an M-Leica, with lenses like the excellent but fortunately much underrated Summarits 35, 50, 70 and 90mm, f/2.5 or 2.4 (the older, f/2.5 ones being just as good as the latter), all available used but in excellent condition under €900 a piece (and no risk of inner mechanics or -drives ever breaking down)?

If you want small and cheap lenses to go with the RP, there are plenty to choose from in the EF line. There are several Canon EF>RF adapters to choose from, with various levels of functionality, and that work really well.

As has been in the past, Canon know very well the market: cheap cameras to entice the masses, and later on expensive lenses.

Makes me somewhat sad that Sony didn't invest a wee-bit more into their APS-C system. They started out with some wonderfully small, light, sharp optics in fixed focal lengths, and then did nothing as they chased the FF market. But, honestly, 24mm, 30mm, and 50mm should be more than adequate, shouldn't it? And we still have Sigma's 19mm, 30mm, and 60mm Art DN lenses. Those tend to be small and seriously sharp.

The reason I keep coming back to Sony APS-C mirrorless is that I can't get over the size of Fuji's APS-C cameras. Might as well shoot FF if that's as small a mirrorless body as they can build. ;-)

"I'm left wondering what the point of a small, light, inexpensive body is when you're more or less obligated to buy large, heavy, expensive lenses to put on it."
This is why I find micro four thirds so appealing. I can stuff several lenses in my coat pocket and barely notice they're there. I'm sure Canon could remedy this by producing some nice small primes, but will they?


Yes, this is almost ancient history to Pentax owners.

The reason why other camera companies don't include stabilization in every camera body is baffling.

A lens with stabilization will have to be heavier than one without, all other things being equal.

Pentax wants to sell cameras, but they also care about their customers who have older lenses.

The others just want to sell, sell, sell.

"... fail to see the appeal of a compact full-frame body that doesn't have reasonably light, easy-to-handle lenses that go with it."
Canon mirrorless is a relatively new system! Designing, engineering, tooling up, and manufacturing all these complex items takes TIME. Come back in 5 or even 10 years to see how Canon has progressed and then decide if they have the lenses you require. Patience!

I'm not a Canon shooter and it's too difficult to change systems for me, but if I were I'd be very tempted to just buy that body, the 35 macro with IS, and call it good. Looks very appealing. I wish Ricoh made something like that, but with in body IS.

I have multiple Pentax bodies and lenses (film and digital) going back to my 1960's Spotmatic and, for me, APSC is fine. I started to check out the mirrorless world by getting a Fuji X100T and have grown to prefer the smaller size but find that I want/need some type of stabilization and prefer it to be in the body. When I had the opportunity to get a Sony A7II for $1,000, with a lens, I jumped on it. One of the reasons for the Sony is that it seems to be a platform for adapting my collection of Pentax lenses. I really like the files from my Fuji, but no IBIS is a non-starter and Pentax doesn't have a mirrorless offering (and, unfortunately, may not be around much longer). Point is, I have no interest in the new Canon because I don't have Canon lenses.

LOVE the look of that 16mm. I've wanted the 1.4 version for a while, but this puts having that focal length in my bag way more in reach.

Mike , according to Canon the sensor is the same one used in the recent 6D ML II, with new microlenses to accommodate the new flange distance, not the original 6D
Recently, while my wife’s 7d was being serviced by CPS they lent her a 6D mkII, she thought it was a very nice camera . Files were beautiful.

Re video , lack of 24p 1080 not only seems arbitrary, but dumb.
If you want to sell cameras, don’t annoy people with stuff like that.
The camera has the same Digic 8 processor as the R so it is hard to imagine a technical reason. I suspect it will be fixed in firmware.

I think the Canon RP will become a massive hit. It's a good price, it uses all your EF lenses nstively and also allows you to use the nice current set of R lenses, should you feel you want to invest in them (although you have plenty of time). It has familiar ergonomics. When they bring out other bodies (+ or - IBIS), you can get one of those without this purchase having crushed you financially already. They could indeed get Sony A7, but there is no particular reason why people will buy an old camera from a completely different system, when they have a new one from their current system. If I was not Olympus m43ing then I'd probably get one to replace my 5DIV. I might even do that.

As an owner of a A7RII, the A6500 looks like a really nice option for a quite small pocket camera, depending of course on which lens works for you.

Disclaimer: no disrespect to Canon or anyone else making FF mirrorless cameras, or to those who choose to use them (I'm sometimes in that camp myself.)

But if one wants "a mid-twenties-ish megapixel camera that's light and right-sized," without needing big lenses, it's already here. Can you say "Micro Four-Thirds?"

"The EOS RP has roughly the same specs as the five year old Sony A7 ..."

Not to mention, the RP is selling for the same price as a Nikon D750 - a much better camera with a full set of lenses. On the Canon side, mark I 6d is currently $999 at B&H, the second version of that camera is $1500 - only slightly more than the RP.

As an early convert to the Pany G1, I have to take issue with one of the featured comments: "The whole idea of mirrorless was to reduce size and weight." Certainly, less size and weight are nice, especially for travel, but to me, the main benefit is the EVF for its ability to "pre-chimp" photos, as Kurt Tuck describes it. If Canon had put an EVF on its original 6D without changing its size, I would likely have kept mine. I also take issue with a second statement in that featured comments: "the Fuji system seems to be the true home of mirrorless. The size and weight are in the 'Goldilocks' zone and the sensors are 'good enough.'" In my comparisons of my real-world images from the Pany GX8 and Oly EM1 vs Canon 6D and Nikon D750, I find the MFT to be in the Goldilocks zone, considering both image sharpness and DR of RAW files adjusted in LR. YMMV, especially for JPGs, but that is my conclusion.

It does indeed make sense to mention all this gear in one post. To me, the Canon RP is very much a camera that is more expensive but worse in features than the Sony A7 II (and I don't believe for a second that the Canon will have better ergonomics either). The Fuji on the other hand looks like a good, mid range aps-c camera with a nice and reasonably priced lens selection.

I was left a bit perplexed by Canon's lens development announcements. First of all, development announcements are a sure sign of saying to customers that please stay with us, we have cool stuff coming up! Camera companies rarely announce development, since it may steal sales from existing products and it forces them to make some sort of commitment that they may not want to keep. The other perplexing matter is the heavy focus on large premium lenses. Sure a f1.2 lens with modern AF could be nice, not that I necessarily would buy it, but three of them and a f2 zoom. It will be interesting to see if there's a market, but personally I would be more interested in compact, well rounded options.

I'm underwhelmed. I'm about 98% transitioned from Canon FF to Micro Four Thirds, and I see nothing in this camera to move me back, especially with a new lens mount involved. If I were going back to FF, I'd be more likely to pick Sony. For my photography: wildlife, macro, and family, the smaller Micro Four Thirds format, and especially the smaller lenses, make all kinds of sense. A 600mm equivalent lens is smaller and lighter than the Canon 70-200. At that kind of reach, body size is less relevant than lens size. The one item that's keeping me partially in the Canon camp is the awesome Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens - fully manual focus, magnifications from 1x to 5x without extension tubes. If you're photographing insects (one of Mike's least favorite subjects) it's as close to perfect as it gets.

When Nikon released "prosumer" polycarbonate lenses for the Z system, they got slagged for not putting out a professional line of lenses; there are many videos criticizing Nikon for putting out polycarbonate-bodied "consumer/prosumer" lenses. The EOS R ships, and everyone praises Canon for putting out the new line of RF pro lenses that are superb with respect to optical & manufacturing quality. Then the RP drops, and now Canon is getting slagged for not putting out cheap "consumer/prosumer" polycarbonate R-mount lenses, the same way Nikon did? 😕 I think it would help to try to view this objectively from Canon's business perspective: they need to develop a full system of RF Pro-grade lenses for a minimum of 4 bodies; the R, the RP, the R Pro (in time for the 2020 Olympics), and very likely a mirrorless 7D-level body. With respect to developing a completely new camera system platform from the ground-up, it doesn't make sense from a business, resource allocation, and Ops perspective, to stop in the middle of a major & very expensive engineering program of developing a full system of pro-grade RF lenses as quickly & effectively as possible (e.g., for the 2020 Olympics) and then divert those key lens design, development and manufacturing resources to making "cheap, consumer/prosumer grade" lenses that have little to no margin. Doesn't make business sense from Canon's product development perspective. Lets not forget you can buy a Canon EF "Nifty Fifty" for $125 new, and a like new used EF 28-135 IS for $210, and there are many, many EF lenses that will go with the free EF-RF mount adapter that comes with the RP. Hell, you can even buy the sweet little Canon EF 70-200/4 new for $599. Where is the problem?

The new lenses are large primarily because of autofocus and fashion. The current fad is for higher-than-traditional optical performance combined with large apertures (think Sigma Art). The manufacturers could easily issue a small set of 50/35/28/21mm f/2 or f/2.8 manual focus primes that are very small and possessing acceptable performance. Many of us would buy those and accomplish 90% of what we'd like to do with photography.

In terms of 'small, lighter lenses' for these new mirrorless offerings from Canon and Nikon, I saved all of my favorite Nikon legacy primes when switching to Canon FF digital in 2004. Since then I've used a few Nikkors (dumb-adapted) on my Canon bodies for personal work, but I cannot wait to put these tiny Nikkor marvels on the first Nikon "Z" body with dual card slots. My 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.4, 105 f/2 DC, 180 f/2.8 AF and a few others are chomping at the bit!!

I have been waiting impatiently for that 16mm 'chron. It certainly took its time, and still ain't quite here yet.

I agree with Mike that small and mirrorless seem like they belong together. My full-frame mirrorless approach features great lenses that are quite small and light. The only drawback being they are permanently attached to their own small light cameras. But that's not really a drawback, rather a source of delight.

Currently on my homepage are photos from a 40mm Sonnar attached to a Rollei 35S https://www.hookstrapped.com/ Another favorite is a 28mm Rokkor attached to a Minolta TC-1. And I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival of a 38mm Sonnar attached to a Contax T.

Ken Rockwell says the Canon EOS RP is the best FF mirrorless, and I have to agree. From what I’ve read the RP would do everything I’d need for paid work. BTW I’ve shot EOS1 film to 5D3 digital and never felt the need for IBIS.

I agree it is all about the lenses. The benefit of mirrorless is not only a bit smaller size, ideally requiring and making it possible to have smaller lenses by avoiding the mirror clearance, but also the electronic viewfinder that makes it possible to use slower lenses with a brighter finder image. And slower lenses are smaller. Slower lenses lead to higher iso, which is no problem, but also to slower shutter speed, which can be partly overcome by image stabilisation. Sony is doing all that quite well. Olympus is partly missing it by focusing it’s effort in making big, fast, prime lenses. Canon and Nikon have a long way to go.

Has it changed? I always thought (and seemed to observe) that the Rebel market demographic pretty much went with zooms. And for some, the longer/bigger the better. Not that there was any compensation happenin’. Just saying.

Canon's FF mirrorless rollout is clearly a little uncoordinated, with poor synchronization between its body and lens introductions, as you noted, Mike. They mis-timed their "okay, now we get serious" moment (as did Nikon, but not as badly), and now they're scrambling a bit.

But this will be temporary. We can't see what Canon's elves are doing, but certainly they are tinkering away on cameras that will be a great match for the mondo high-end lenses Canon has announced, and modest lenses that will be a great match for the RP and its successors.

This is a long game, with a ton o' stuff coming down the pike that Canon knows about and we don't. They don't have to get everything right in the first 5 minutes. In 24 months the RF system will undoubtedly look a lot more logical and well-rounded with jillions of happy users.

Weather Canon as gotten it right or wrong from a business point of view will be answered in time. We should be rooting for them. If we want the kinds of R&D that bring new features and capabilities, we need profitable camera companies.
With a shrinking market that has not yet found a bottom, profitability has to color every manufacturing decision to a greater degree than when cameras are flying off the shelves.
You can't be a vertically integrated Boutique camera company anymore, sensor fabs cost too much money. For Cameras larger than phones, that means pretty much Sony & Canon. It would be a bad thing to have a single supplier camera sensor market.

People often say that camera companies 'don't listen' , I actually think that the reality is that they listen carefully, but the path to actual products has to pass through the serial filters of what is possible, what is practical, what is profitable, and what is in the parts bin.
As consumers, we want what we want, period.
One anomaly I see is the seeming de-emphasis of APS-C by Nikon & Canon. Both companies DSLR offerings are long in the tooth and lacking prime lenses, and Nikon has No mirrorless offering, and while Canon does,(and it is selling fairly well) it has a separate consumer lens system with no upgrade path to the R system.
Surely the Canon RP body could have an APS-c sensor in it which would allow smaller cheaper lenses. We have lots of experience with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 EFs lens and it is wonderful. Porting over a couple of good existing lenses to the R system . They HAVE included an EFs Adapter capability and 1.6 crop mode which helps a little.
Both Nikon & Canon have frustrated lots of long time customers with their handling of APS-c and Slow Mirrorless adoption. They should be working hard to undo that.
We are seeing the results of a smaller market for cameras, if the market shrinks appreciably from hers, we'll see a lot more.

Have you and Thom Hogan been chatting again?!? 😀

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007