C200 Mark II When?

rob norton said:
I think the price difference between the EF and RF version is completely fair:

- if you can take advantage of the control ring
- I see the minimum focus with the RF version is 21cm vs. 38cm on the EF - that's a pretty big reduction and not really a value add I've thought of before.
- no adapter
- other than autofocus differences and what I listed, are there any other reasons you like it so much?

I personally don't see myself going down the RF path anytime soon. Who knows if I'll eventually give in!
Click to expand...

Based on my brief experience with the RF lenses, one of the best things about them is that they have fractional iris control and slow iris shifts available. You can use the control ring to ride the iris with results that look like a manual iris adjustment. Also, all of the focus is focus by wire so the zooms are programmed to be parfocal. Also, they added IS to their f/2.8 RF L zooms.

That said, I don't see why I would want to replace my EF 18-80 CN-E with an RF 18-80 CN-E unless their is some massive improvement like F/2.8. Also, I'm not sure why people would want to give up the option of a speedbooster on their EF lenses just so they don't have to use an ef to rf adapter.
 
rob norton said:
I think the price difference between the EF and RF version is completely fair:

- if you can take advantage of the control ring
- I see the minimum focus with the RF version is 21cm vs. 38cm on the EF - that's a pretty big reduction and not really a value add I've thought of before.
- no adapter
- other than autofocus differences and what I listed, are there any other reasons you like it so much?

I personally don't see myself going down the RF path anytime soon. Who knows if I'll eventually give in!
Click to expand...

RF has image stabilisation and EF doesn't. That was the reason why I never had the EF version but the Sigma 24-70 instead. I often shoot stills in dark environments and the diference between IS and not was always a world. I cannot tell how the EF performs withs the sensor stabiliser of the R5 though. The Sigma is very heavy and bulky though and for video the RF 24-70 is top notch also.
 
cpreston said:
That said, I don't see why I would want to replace my EF 18-80 CN-E with an RF 18-80 CN-E unless their is some massive improvement like F/2.8.
Click to expand...

I don't like stuttering that sometime happens when zooming slowly. Canon knows about that and will improve it on RF version.
 
DLD said:
The "other side" of the market - on September, 2 Fuji is supposed to announce two new cameras : a medium format 50 MPX GFX50SII (expected to be priced at $4,000) and an 26 MPX APS-C XT-30 MKII (MKI is currently selling for $800).
Click to expand...

I don’t understand why they bring the GFX50SII with contrast AF instead of phase detection like the big brother. They focus on photo and cripple video. Fine. But AF?
 
Clermond said:
I don’t understand why they bring the GFX50SII with contrast AF instead of phase detection like the big brother. They focus on photo and cripple video. Fine. But AF?
Click to expand...

To quote Timothy B. Schmidt, "I can't tell you why".

My hunch is that it will get a firmware upgrade and a price reduction after a year, when Sony and/or Canon release their 80-100 MPX photo oriented full frame models.. As it is, it's sort of an OK tool for studio work, although, as I had mentioned, a professional would likely be able to cough up two more grand for GFX100S.

PS. I ought to add that Fuji can easily make an R5 specc'ed 8K medium format camera, had it wanted to. And had Sony permitted it.
 
Last edited:
cpreston said:
Based on my brief experience with the RF lenses, one of the best things about them is that they have fractional iris control and slow iris shifts available. You can use the control ring to ride the iris with results that look like a manual iris adjustment. Also, all of the focus is focus by wire so the zooms are programmed to be parfocal. Also, they added IS to their f/2.8 RF L zooms.

That said, I don't see why I would want to replace my EF 18-80 CN-E with an RF 18-80 CN-E unless their is some massive improvement like F/2.8. Also, I'm not sure why people would want to give up the option of a speedbooster on their EF lenses just so they don't have to use an ef to rf adapter.
Click to expand...

That's great, thanks Casey.

If canon (or anyone) allowed FULL control via a (bonus if integrated) wireless monitor, it would be beyond disruptive. FIZ capabilities minus the hardware. That would be one way to sell a lot of RF lenses.

Clermond said:
RF has image stabilisation and EF doesn't. That was the reason why I never had the EF version but the Sigma 24-70 instead. I often shoot stills in dark environments and the diference between IS and not was always a world. I cannot tell how the EF performs withs the sensor stabiliser of the R5 though. The Sigma is very heavy and bulky though and for video the RF 24-70 is top notch also.
Click to expand...

Another win for the RF 24-70.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top