- Messages
- 15,850
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The RP is now up on HDEW ... £1239, inc the EF adapter!
doesn't seem like that great a saving tbh.
EOS R can be had for £1359 grey also.
If you are ready to buy grey, might as well go with R for little more.
The RP is now up on HDEW ... £1239, inc the EF adapter!
doesn't seem like that great a saving tbh.
EOS R can be had for £1359 grey also.
If you are ready to buy grey, might as well go with R for little more.
Where is that price for the R? HDEW include the adapter for the R for £1549. If I was going for either I'd go with them over the likes of Efinity I think. Too much risk with the aggresive customs over here.
It doesn't really offer me any more than what I currently have apart from the price.
But the RF 35/1.8 is THE lens for me.
That's the one I would go for, that 24-105 does look good value for the cut price above but tbh, I think that's all it should be from the off if they really want to attract the budget photographer. The 35 1.8 is a little over too, but it'll come down, there'll be a bunch of them going used in a little while too I imagine. I could probably shoot 80+% of my style just using that and an adapted 85mm
Samyang are about to release a 14mm and 85mm for the RF mount but they will be MF only. This does = cheap though.
I wouldn't go for MF unless it's UWA. But I am big fan of the EF 100mm f2. So I could adapt that.
Lenses are not a problem here... It's the bodies
From the outside looking in it seems that the lenses are towards the higher end but the bodies are towards the lower end. I may be wrong but that's how it looks to me. It may be the right strategy. I'm not saying it isn't, it just surprises me a little.
I wouldn't go for MF unless it's UWA. But I am big fan of the EF 100mm f2. So I could adapt that.
Lenses are not a problem here... It's the bodies
What exactly does the R lack body-wise for you? The only thing for me would be no IBIS, which I realise we're all pampered with these days and I could learn to live without it again. As for build quality I see nothing about the R lacking in comparison to any of the Sony models. The RP looks a bit lacking in that dept, but compared to what?
To be fair the two current bodies appear to be be similarly specced to their DSLR equivalents (RP v the 6dii and R v the 5DIV)
AF, dynamic range, FPS and pixels (in order of importance)
Note I haven't mentioned IBIS
Though the pixel shift feature is very nice.
You may not mention it but I bet you'd miss it if it were suddenly gone from your camera I know I would. FPS is kinda meaningless to me, I'm in S-AF mode almost always. Pixels? Doesn't the R have more than the A7III? DR aye, but I feel that's over exaggerated in reviews, I've seen some vids that showed it's nowhere near as bad as some make out, and if you're shooting at anything above the base ISO the camera only gets better. And seeing as they are pretty decent performing at higher ISO - one of the factors that would be higher on my list, it really matters most for landscape - which I don't tend to do much of ... what I'm saying I guess is that it's all down to personal preference. If you have specific personal preference reasons for or against, nobody can argue with them
Answering your points in order:
- I went from Sony A99 to A7 the latter with no IBIS. I was adapting a-mount glass too, most of them did not have OS either. Never had an issue. I appreciate IBIS and its useful but I am just as happy breaking out a tripod if needed. So I wouldn't miss it. Besides the 24-105mm and 35mm f1.8 both have IS. So doesn't matter for the most part anyway.
- Meaningless to you perhaps, meaningful to me (you did ask what it was lacking for me ). I have few airshows, car shows and bird show booked this spring/summer. FPS is a valuable thing for these.
- I have A7RIII. So no to more pixels. I know I would miss this more than the IBIS too
- The R definitely isn't bad for dynamic range (matches Sony APS-C sensors at base ISO which I used to shoot previously with no issues). So I could live with that if that was the only downside. At higher ISO its very comparable to other FF as you mentioned, so no issues there.
But the more important issue above all these is the AF tracking which isn't at the level of 5D4 or A7RIII.
- I have A7RIII. So no to more pixels. I know I would miss this more than the IBIS too
So what's lacking in the Sony for you?
35mm macros seem to be a bit rare and at this moment I can't really think of another modern one. We know that the rumor site is expecting a Sony 35mm f1.8 at some point in the near future and that'll interest me unless it's too big, heavy and/or expensive. Until that arrives I'm mostly happy with the 35mm options I have and although the Batis hasn't really crossed my mind I do have the MF Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 which focuses quite close.RF 35mm F1.8 macro equivalent
(And please don't mention the batis 40 because its not even close)
It looks like that version is not a fixed length so good for traveling etc but I'd prefer the old EF version myself.The 70-200 that's being developed for the R series looks amazingly small. I wonder when that is coming out.
35mm macros seem to be a bit rare and at this moment I can't really think of another modern one. We know that the rumor site is expecting a Sony 35mm f1.8 at some point in the near future and that'll interest me unless it's too big, heavy and/or expensive. Until that arrives I'm mostly happy with the 35mm options I have and although the Batis hasn't really crossed my mind I do have the MF Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 which focuses quite close.
I can sort of see where you're coming from but I doubt I'd go through the expense and hassle of a system change for one lens. I'd settle for an ordinary non macro 35 and switch to a 50mm macro when needed or just add a close up filter or even just crop the picture.
I am aware of thatI'm sure you're already aware, but for those who are not the RF 35mm 1.8 is 1:2 macro, not full on 1:1. It looks a beauty, the kind of lens I could happily keep on camera most of the time. I think when they start hitting the used market, and they will along with RP bodies, they will do very well.
I am aware of that
Most of the time that's all I need and it's a great option to have when traveling.
Everything i've read says it is still slated for 'late 2019'The 70-200 that's being developed for the R series looks amazingly small. I wonder when that is coming out.
Agreed, while the lens looks very impressive i prefer internal zooming rather than the telescoping barrel. I also think the price will be eye watering considering the current pricing of the RF glass.It looks like that version is not a fixed length so good for traveling etc but I'd prefer the old EF version myself.
A simple add-on like a Raynox would swiftly turn it 1:1 either way. But as is, 1:2 for a bright 35mm like this is incredible. Looks to be pin sharp even wide open from what I've seen too
Yep. I'd hardly shoot macro at F1.8 anyway
For a wide angle better to use extension tubes than raynox. Think 16-ish mm would do the trick to get it close enough to 1:1
It's not just that though, it's so small too.
Most of my macro work is done in my room, in the dark using long exposures (example in signature link).You're right there, raynox is much better on longer FL
I'd get creative with a 1.8 1:2 - macro is one of few genres where 'bokeh' really shines IMO
Most of my macro work is done in my room, in the dark using long exposures (example in signature link).
40 is close! Else adapt the Canon one heheRF 35mm F1.8 macro equivalent
(And please don't mention the batis 40 because its not even close)
But it extends when zoomed so not really small..The 70-200 that's being developed for the R series looks amazingly small. I wonder when that is coming out.
It not, no where close. It only does 0.33x which my 24-105mm does anyway and it's huge compared to RF35/1.840 is close! Else adapt the Canon one hehe