Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.1. The Autofocus is really slick. Canon refers to this as "Deep learning technology EOS iTR AF X" which is present on the R6 II and newer R8 and now R50. What's interesting is watching it in effect. On paper, it looks like it's just newer subject detection algorithms. Wrong. There is now variable size block partitioning going on with AF, which is similar to what's used in x264/x265 motion estimation technology for video compression. The block partitioning AF is only visible thus far, in Auto mode. Canon may be playing with this in R50 and soon R8, maybe. But there is something special going on here where no offense to my R3, the R50 has a leg up in "Auto" AF. Sure, my eye-controlled AF ain't going out of style, but man, the camera is yet smarter still. It makes Sony look bad. Fro isn't wrong, the R50 may be superior to the Z9, he could be right, the R50 is superior to my R3 in the auto-AF department. Lets hope Canon back ports this software. It could be hardware too, which would be unfortunate. I suspect it is (both)..2. Handling. The R50 "passes" a couple tests... Fits in my cupholder with a lens attached (facing down), fits in my drawer for storage at home, fits in my driver's seat door handle, again, lens down. Light enough you forget it's on you, very M-like. Handles a bit better than the M50 Mark II, too. The LCD takes more to pull out, which is annoying. Buttons are well placed. That ISO button is the most customizable of the bunch. AF or Digital TC seem to be the best fits for it, but, maybe just plain ol ISO might be too. More on that another time..3. Image quality. The R50 shares the same R10 sensor, but, like the R6 Mark II's new Deep Learning AF, I noticed it has subtle but definite improvements to SOOC JPEG. There’s something going on with fine detail rendering. Also the R50 just doesn't miss a beat with metering; it is smarter than my R3 with dealing with mixed lighting environments; I found myself adjusting my exposure comp over the weekend in restaurants with my parents (visiting) for bright-backlit. R50? Nope. AWB? The R3 in video although smart, it can, even with it's super smart AWB, goof with mixed lighting, still. R50? Nope. It's really an impressive technological terror in the processing department. My R3 may be a beast, but Canon has clearly been busy in the software and probably processing department the past year improving things yet further. Not that the R3 is a poor performer, it smokes an R5, but the R50 leaves em both behind. In RAW image quality, the R50 performs in practice what Photons To Photons has shown, better in higher ISOs than the M50 Mark II, but not quite as good as an M6 Mark II. Very close. All to say about 1/3-1/2 stop improvement in low light performance vs the M50/M50 II, but a touch behind the M6 II / R7..4. Lenes. Oh Canon, this is where things for the R50 turn negative, even me as a Canon-fan am going to turn negative. Although I personally don't mind 28mm, or 18mm on a crop, the 18mm on the RF-S 18-45 is more like 18.9mm, which is a thing if you look at the patents for these lenses, there's no such thing as 18mm, it's 18.02, or 18.7, or in this case, I think it's 18.9999999 so as to not be 19mm. Loosing 3mm although a somewhat big deal, loosing 3.9mm? Hurts more. I can tell. Ugh. f/4.5? Hurts indoors. The R50 may have picked up about 1/3-1/2 stops of noise performance, but gave up more on the glass. I have to say my R3 although it was here to stay, it's here to stay. Geeze Canon, give us some faster native RF-S glass, and, give us wider RF-S glass. Although I was thrilled with the performance of the 18-45 and 55-210 at the fair and Phinizy swap in Sunny16-like conditions, indoors? Nope. Wide angle? Nope. Although we knew this, like yeah, it's true. Now those darker lenses don't hurt you outside, again, this camera has another 1/3 stop at least in ISO performance, so shooting say ISO800 doesn't really show up like it would an M50, but indoors when you're punching 2000-4000 because you lost another 2/3 stops on the stock lens? Yeah..5. Video. I've touched on this a bit, the R50's 4K output is FANTASTIC. I put this in caps as it's nice and saturated, but not overly so, 4K is detailed, I did get a heat warning because I was exposing my R50 to a TON of sunlight yesterday at the swamp and shooting a ton, which is notable, it didn't stop me but there is definite concern for heat-exhaustion of this guy and 4K. I'm really, really happy of the footage from the fair. It's almost like being there. For a "cheap" camera too relatively speaking. Makes smartphones look really poor. Now IBIS would've been nice though, I'll grant you that. It handles static hand-holding compensation well, but walking and pushing a stroller on a wooded deck at the swamp? Yeah. Good for what it is though, excellent in fact..6. About that dust cleaning. 2 pieces, I blew them off with my mouth, a no-no, oh well, worked fine at the swamp. I used a prim and proper air rocket earlier today even though I didn't spot any dust. You should get an air rocket..7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on..I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.htmlAnd it seems Canon does things in generations if you will..Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs..I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details....Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...

Have you tried the A+ Advanced Auto where the camera makes all the decisions but can do multi-frame computational photography? I'm curious how well this works.Also I think I remember someone saying that in auto subject detection AF mode if you don't like the subject the camera selected, you just tap on the rear screen (assuming you're using the VF) and it looks for another subject. Seems it would be really useful if it works.Thanks for the info. This camera has had my curiosity up for a while. I still haven't found the ideal secondary small camera for my FF RF gear and it sounds like this is the best one yet for that mission.

RLight wrote:Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.1. The Autofocus is really slick. Canon refers to this as "Deep learning technology EOS iTR AF X" which is present on the R6 II and newer R8 and now R50. What's interesting is watching it in effect. On paper, it looks like it's just newer subject detection algorithms. Wrong. There is now variable size block partitioning going on with AF, which is similar to what's used in x264/x265 motion estimation technology for video compression. The block partitioning AF is only visible thus far, in Auto mode. Canon may be playing with this in R50 and soon R8, maybe. But there is something special going on here where no offense to my R3, the R50 has a leg up in "Auto" AF. Sure, my eye-controlled AF ain't going out of style, but man, the camera is yet smarter still. It makes Sony look bad. Fro isn't wrong, the R50 may be superior to the Z9, he could be right, the R50 is superior to my R3 in the auto-AF department. Lets hope Canon back ports this software. It could be hardware too, which would be unfortunate. I suspect it is (both)..2. Handling. The R50 "passes" a couple tests... Fits in my cupholder with a lens attached (facing down), fits in my drawer for storage at home, fits in my driver's seat door handle, again, lens down. Light enough you forget it's on you, very M-like. Handles a bit better than the M50 Mark II, too. The LCD takes more to pull out, which is annoying. Buttons are well placed. That ISO button is the most customizable of the bunch. AF or Digital TC seem to be the best fits for it, but, maybe just plain ol ISO might be too. More on that another time..3. Image quality. The R50 shares the same R10 sensor, but, like the R6 Mark II's new Deep Learning AF, I noticed it has subtle but definite improvements to SOOC JPEG. There’s something going on with fine detail rendering. Also the R50 just doesn't miss a beat with metering; it is smarter than my R3 with dealing with mixed lighting environments; I found myself adjusting my exposure comp over the weekend in restaurants with my parents (visiting) for bright-backlit. R50? Nope. AWB? The R3 in video although smart, it can, even with it's super smart AWB, goof with mixed lighting, still. R50? Nope. It's really an impressive technological terror in the processing department. My R3 may be a beast, but Canon has clearly been busy in the software and probably processing department the past year improving things yet further. Not that the R3 is a poor performer, it smokes an R5, but the R50 leaves em both behind. In RAW image quality, the R50 performs in practice what Photons To Photons has shown, better in higher ISOs than the M50 Mark II, but not quite as good as an M6 Mark II. Very close. All to say about 1/3-1/2 stop improvement in low light performance vs the M50/M50 II, but a touch behind the M6 II / R7..4. Lenes. Oh Canon, this is where things for the R50 turn negative, even me as a Canon-fan am going to turn negative. Although I personally don't mind 28mm, or 18mm on a crop, the 18mm on the RF-S 18-45 is more like 18.9mm, which is a thing if you look at the patents for these lenses, there's no such thing as 18mm, it's 18.02, or 18.7, or in this case, I think it's 18.9999999 so as to not be 19mm. Loosing 3mm although a somewhat big deal, loosing 3.9mm? Hurts more. I can tell. Ugh. f/4.5? Hurts indoors. The R50 may have picked up about 1/3-1/2 stops of noise performance, but gave up more on the glass. I have to say my R3 although it was here to stay, it's here to stay. Geeze Canon, give us some faster native RF-S glass, and, give us wider RF-S glass. Although I was thrilled with the performance of the 18-45 and 55-210 at the fair and Phinizy swap in Sunny16-like conditions, indoors? Nope. Wide angle? Nope. Although we knew this, like yeah, it's true. Now those darker lenses don't hurt you outside, again, this camera has another 1/3 stop at least in ISO performance, so shooting say ISO800 doesn't really show up like it would an M50, but indoors when you're punching 2000-4000 because you lost another 2/3 stops on the stock lens? Yeah..5. Video. I've touched on this a bit, the R50's 4K output is FANTASTIC. I put this in caps as it's nice and saturated, but not overly so, 4K is detailed, I did get a heat warning because I was exposing my R50 to a TON of sunlight yesterday at the swamp and shooting a ton, which is notable, it didn't stop me but there is definite concern for heat-exhaustion of this guy and 4K. I'm really, really happy of the footage from the fair. It's almost like being there. For a "cheap" camera too relatively speaking. Makes smartphones look really poor. Now IBIS would've been nice though, I'll grant you that. It handles static hand-holding compensation well, but walking and pushing a stroller on a wooded deck at the swamp? Yeah. Good for what it is though, excellent in fact..6. About that dust cleaning. 2 pieces, I blew them off with my mouth, a no-no, oh well, worked fine at the swamp. I used a prim and proper air rocket earlier today even though I didn't spot any dust. You should get an air rocket..7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on..I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.htmlAnd it seems Canon does things in generations if you will..Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs..I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details....Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...The EF-S 10-18mm STM, 18-55mm STM and 55-250mm STM are all great lenses and are cheap right now.I am interested in how those lenses work on the R50, R10 and R7.Who knows what lenses are in the future ?

jwilliams wrote:Have you tried the A+ Advanced Auto where the camera makes all the decisions but can do multi-frame computational photography? I'm curious how well this works.Also I think I remember someone saying that in auto subject detection AF mode if you don't like the subject the camera selected, you just tap on the rear screen (assuming you're using the VF) and it looks for another subject. Seems it would be really useful if it works.Thanks for the info. This camera has had my curiosity up for a while. I still haven't found the ideal secondary small camera for my FF RF gear and it sounds like this is the best one yet for that mission.I have. It’s an easy access bracketing and stacking mode. Both exposure and WB it appears. I don’t want to say needs work, but it could. It’s a first step to catching up with smartphones, and everyone has to start somewhere. Where the smartphone wins, is it picks the sharpest shot in a bracket automatically for example. Canon gives you automation for creating series of burst, but auto culling them for desirability isn’t there. Big ask, I know, but that’s the bar…

...no f/2 or brighter primes, no buy. RF-S 22/1.4, please.

m100 wrote:RLight wrote:Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.1. The Autofocus is really slick. Canon refers to this as "Deep learning technology EOS iTR AF X" which is present on the R6 II and newer R8 and now R50. What's interesting is watching it in effect. On paper, it looks like it's just newer subject detection algorithms. Wrong. There is now variable size block partitioning going on with AF, which is similar to what's used in x264/x265 motion estimation technology for video compression. The block partitioning AF is only visible thus far, in Auto mode. Canon may be playing with this in R50 and soon R8, maybe. But there is something special going on here where no offense to my R3, the R50 has a leg up in "Auto" AF. Sure, my eye-controlled AF ain't going out of style, but man, the camera is yet smarter still. It makes Sony look bad. Fro isn't wrong, the R50 may be superior to the Z9, he could be right, the R50 is superior to my R3 in the auto-AF department. Lets hope Canon back ports this software. It could be hardware too, which would be unfortunate. I suspect it is (both)..2. Handling. The R50 "passes" a couple tests... Fits in my cupholder with a lens attached (facing down), fits in my drawer for storage at home, fits in my driver's seat door handle, again, lens down. Light enough you forget it's on you, very M-like. Handles a bit better than the M50 Mark II, too. The LCD takes more to pull out, which is annoying. Buttons are well placed. That ISO button is the most customizable of the bunch. AF or Digital TC seem to be the best fits for it, but, maybe just plain ol ISO might be too. More on that another time..3. Image quality. The R50 shares the same R10 sensor, but, like the R6 Mark II's new Deep Learning AF, I noticed it has subtle but definite improvements to SOOC JPEG. There’s something going on with fine detail rendering. Also the R50 just doesn't miss a beat with metering; it is smarter than my R3 with dealing with mixed lighting environments; I found myself adjusting my exposure comp over the weekend in restaurants with my parents (visiting) for bright-backlit. R50? Nope. AWB? The R3 in video although smart, it can, even with it's super smart AWB, goof with mixed lighting, still. R50? Nope. It's really an impressive technological terror in the processing department. My R3 may be a beast, but Canon has clearly been busy in the software and probably processing department the past year improving things yet further. Not that the R3 is a poor performer, it smokes an R5, but the R50 leaves em both behind. In RAW image quality, the R50 performs in practice what Photons To Photons has shown, better in higher ISOs than the M50 Mark II, but not quite as good as an M6 Mark II. Very close. All to say about 1/3-1/2 stop improvement in low light performance vs the M50/M50 II, but a touch behind the M6 II / R7..4. Lenes. Oh Canon, this is where things for the R50 turn negative, even me as a Canon-fan am going to turn negative. Although I personally don't mind 28mm, or 18mm on a crop, the 18mm on the RF-S 18-45 is more like 18.9mm, which is a thing if you look at the patents for these lenses, there's no such thing as 18mm, it's 18.02, or 18.7, or in this case, I think it's 18.9999999 so as to not be 19mm. Loosing 3mm although a somewhat big deal, loosing 3.9mm? Hurts more. I can tell. Ugh. f/4.5? Hurts indoors. The R50 may have picked up about 1/3-1/2 stops of noise performance, but gave up more on the glass. I have to say my R3 although it was here to stay, it's here to stay. Geeze Canon, give us some faster native RF-S glass, and, give us wider RF-S glass. Although I was thrilled with the performance of the 18-45 and 55-210 at the fair and Phinizy swap in Sunny16-like conditions, indoors? Nope. Wide angle? Nope. Although we knew this, like yeah, it's true. Now those darker lenses don't hurt you outside, again, this camera has another 1/3 stop at least in ISO performance, so shooting say ISO800 doesn't really show up like it would an M50, but indoors when you're punching 2000-4000 because you lost another 2/3 stops on the stock lens? Yeah..5. Video. I've touched on this a bit, the R50's 4K output is FANTASTIC. I put this in caps as it's nice and saturated, but not overly so, 4K is detailed, I did get a heat warning because I was exposing my R50 to a TON of sunlight yesterday at the swamp and shooting a ton, which is notable, it didn't stop me but there is definite concern for heat-exhaustion of this guy and 4K. I'm really, really happy of the footage from the fair. It's almost like being there. For a "cheap" camera too relatively speaking. Makes smartphones look really poor. Now IBIS would've been nice though, I'll grant you that. It handles static hand-holding compensation well, but walking and pushing a stroller on a wooded deck at the swamp? Yeah. Good for what it is though, excellent in fact..6. About that dust cleaning. 2 pieces, I blew them off with my mouth, a no-no, oh well, worked fine at the swamp. I used a prim and proper air rocket earlier today even though I didn't spot any dust. You should get an air rocket..7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on..I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.htmlAnd it seems Canon does things in generations if you will..Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs..I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details....Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...The EF-S 10-18mm STM, 18-55mm STM and 55-250mm STM are all great lenses and are cheap right now.I am interested in how those lenses work on the R50, R10 and R7.Who knows what lenses are in the future ?Those should be fantastic adapted, but bigger obviously, and you bring up a good point.I’m struggling over here as I love and hate the R50 and couldn’t put my finger on it. It’s the stock lens. I feel Canon has compromised too deeply on it. I did not see this one coming even though it’s obvious from the spec sheet. I have to say Canon did a good job on the R50, but the stock 18-45, stinks. Sure it’s sharp, no copy issues, but man, to start at f/4.5 and 18mm, it’s a double hit coming from a perfect copy of an EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3. People complained that was a slow lens, they’re wrong. The RF-S 18-45 f/4.5-6.3 is… That lens is the Achilles heel of the R50 kit.

AbuMahendra wrote:...no f/2 or brighter primes, no buy. RF-S 22/1.4, please.They should, really. They won’t. It’ll canon-balize sales. Pun intended.On a serious note the weakness of the R50 is the glass, we all knew it but seriously, it rocks for outside, but indoors? I pause. F/4.5 is slow to start with, on crop, let alone FF. Makes the R50 hard to recommend for general use.The R50 is easy to recommend for amateur sports and content creators, outdoors. The Z50 starts at 16mm and f/3.5mm on its stock lens. I actually think Canon needs to fix this. That’s big talk from yours truly. I know they don’t read this forums, but if they do? Fix it.

RLight wrote:jwilliams wrote:Have you tried the A+ Advanced Auto where the camera makes all the decisions but can do multi-frame computational photography? I'm curious how well this works.Also I think I remember someone saying that in auto subject detection AF mode if you don't like the subject the camera selected, you just tap on the rear screen (assuming you're using the VF) and it looks for another subject. Seems it would be really useful if it works.Thanks for the info. This camera has had my curiosity up for a while. I still haven't found the ideal secondary small camera for my FF RF gear and it sounds like this is the best one yet for that mission.I have. It’s an easy access bracketing and stacking mode. Both exposure and WB it appears. I don’t want to say needs work, but it could. It’s a first step to catching up with smartphones, and everyone has to start somewhere. Where the smartphone wins, is it picks the sharpest shot in a bracket automatically for example. Canon gives you automation for creating series of burst, but auto culling them for desirability isn’t there. Big ask, I know, but that’s the bar…So you end up with a series of shots?  I was under the impression that you got one final image.   Anything you could add is appreciated.  Thanks.

RLight wrote:m100 wrote:RLight wrote:Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.1. The Autofocus is really slick. Canon refers to this as "Deep learning technology EOS iTR AF X" which is present on the R6 II and newer R8 and now R50. What's interesting is watching it in effect. On paper, it looks like it's just newer subject detection algorithms. Wrong. There is now variable size block partitioning going on with AF, which is similar to what's used in x264/x265 motion estimation technology for video compression. The block partitioning AF is only visible thus far, in Auto mode. Canon may be playing with this in R50 and soon R8, maybe. But there is something special going on here where no offense to my R3, the R50 has a leg up in "Auto" AF. Sure, my eye-controlled AF ain't going out of style, but man, the camera is yet smarter still. It makes Sony look bad. Fro isn't wrong, the R50 may be superior to the Z9, he could be right, the R50 is superior to my R3 in the auto-AF department. Lets hope Canon back ports this software. It could be hardware too, which would be unfortunate. I suspect it is (both)..2. Handling. The R50 "passes" a couple tests... Fits in my cupholder with a lens attached (facing down), fits in my drawer for storage at home, fits in my driver's seat door handle, again, lens down. Light enough you forget it's on you, very M-like. Handles a bit better than the M50 Mark II, too. The LCD takes more to pull out, which is annoying. Buttons are well placed. That ISO button is the most customizable of the bunch. AF or Digital TC seem to be the best fits for it, but, maybe just plain ol ISO might be too. More on that another time..3. Image quality. The R50 shares the same R10 sensor, but, like the R6 Mark II's new Deep Learning AF, I noticed it has subtle but definite improvements to SOOC JPEG. There’s something going on with fine detail rendering. Also the R50 just doesn't miss a beat with metering; it is smarter than my R3 with dealing with mixed lighting environments; I found myself adjusting my exposure comp over the weekend in restaurants with my parents (visiting) for bright-backlit. R50? Nope. AWB? The R3 in video although smart, it can, even with it's super smart AWB, goof with mixed lighting, still. R50? Nope. It's really an impressive technological terror in the processing department. My R3 may be a beast, but Canon has clearly been busy in the software and probably processing department the past year improving things yet further. Not that the R3 is a poor performer, it smokes an R5, but the R50 leaves em both behind. In RAW image quality, the R50 performs in practice what Photons To Photons has shown, better in higher ISOs than the M50 Mark II, but not quite as good as an M6 Mark II. Very close. All to say about 1/3-1/2 stop improvement in low light performance vs the M50/M50 II, but a touch behind the M6 II / R7..4. Lenes. Oh Canon, this is where things for the R50 turn negative, even me as a Canon-fan am going to turn negative. Although I personally don't mind 28mm, or 18mm on a crop, the 18mm on the RF-S 18-45 is more like 18.9mm, which is a thing if you look at the patents for these lenses, there's no such thing as 18mm, it's 18.02, or 18.7, or in this case, I think it's 18.9999999 so as to not be 19mm. Loosing 3mm although a somewhat big deal, loosing 3.9mm? Hurts more. I can tell. Ugh. f/4.5? Hurts indoors. The R50 may have picked up about 1/3-1/2 stops of noise performance, but gave up more on the glass. I have to say my R3 although it was here to stay, it's here to stay. Geeze Canon, give us some faster native RF-S glass, and, give us wider RF-S glass. Although I was thrilled with the performance of the 18-45 and 55-210 at the fair and Phinizy swap in Sunny16-like conditions, indoors? Nope. Wide angle? Nope. Although we knew this, like yeah, it's true. Now those darker lenses don't hurt you outside, again, this camera has another 1/3 stop at least in ISO performance, so shooting say ISO800 doesn't really show up like it would an M50, but indoors when you're punching 2000-4000 because you lost another 2/3 stops on the stock lens? Yeah..5. Video. I've touched on this a bit, the R50's 4K output is FANTASTIC. I put this in caps as it's nice and saturated, but not overly so, 4K is detailed, I did get a heat warning because I was exposing my R50 to a TON of sunlight yesterday at the swamp and shooting a ton, which is notable, it didn't stop me but there is definite concern for heat-exhaustion of this guy and 4K. I'm really, really happy of the footage from the fair. It's almost like being there. For a "cheap" camera too relatively speaking. Makes smartphones look really poor. Now IBIS would've been nice though, I'll grant you that. It handles static hand-holding compensation well, but walking and pushing a stroller on a wooded deck at the swamp? Yeah. Good for what it is though, excellent in fact..6. About that dust cleaning. 2 pieces, I blew them off with my mouth, a no-no, oh well, worked fine at the swamp. I used a prim and proper air rocket earlier today even though I didn't spot any dust. You should get an air rocket..7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on..I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.htmlAnd it seems Canon does things in generations if you will..Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs..I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details....Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...The EF-S 10-18mm STM, 18-55mm STM and 55-250mm STM are all great lenses and are cheap right now.I am interested in how those lenses work on the R50, R10 and R7.Who knows what lenses are in the future ?Those should be fantastic adapted, but bigger obviously, and you bring up a good point.I’m struggling over here as I love and hate the R50 and couldn’t put my finger on it. It’s the stock lens. I feel Canon has compromised too deeply on it. I did not see this one coming even though it’s obvious from the spec sheet.duh...I have to say Canon did a good job on the R50, but the stock 18-45, stinks.if you look back, I kept telling you...Sure it’s sharp, no copy issues, but man, to start at f/4.5 and 18mm, it’s a double hit coming from a perfect copy of an EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3.duh again, and you had a perfect copy on the mPeople complained that was a slow lens, they’re wrong. The RF-S 18-45 f/4.5-6.3 is…of couse it is, it is garbage...That lens is the Achilles heel of the R50 kit.you could always get the RF 15-35 f2.8 IS - R2 says it does great on an R7 crop cameraCanon ain't going to give you a proper normal zoom for this camera - in fact they gave you 18.9 x 1.6, a lens starting at 30 mm fovI hate to say it, but send it back and start overyou can't be stuck with a primary use lens like thisthe R8 + RF 24-105,and tele with the pop can sized RF 70-200 F4L

MAC wrote:RLight wrote:m100 wrote:RLight wrote:Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.......7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on..I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.htmlAnd it seems Canon does things in generations if you will..Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs..I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details....Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...The EF-S 10-18mm STM, 18-55mm STM and 55-250mm STM are all great lenses and are cheap right now.I am interested in how those lenses work on the R50, R10 and R7.Who knows what lenses are in the future ?Those should be fantastic adapted, but bigger obviously, and you bring up a good point.I’m struggling over here as I love and hate the R50 and couldn’t put my finger on it. It’s the stock lens. I feel Canon has compromised too deeply on it. I did not see this one coming even though it’s obvious from the spec sheet.duh...I have to say Canon did a good job on the R50, but the stock 18-45, stinks.if you look back, I kept telling you...Sure it’s sharp, no copy issues, but man, to start at f/4.5 and 18mm, it’s a double hit coming from a perfect copy of an EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3.duh again, and you had a perfect copy on the mPeople complained that was a slow lens, they’re wrong. The RF-S 18-45 f/4.5-6.3 is…of couse it is, it is garbage...That lens is the Achilles heel of the R50 kit.you could always get the RF 15-35 f2.8 IS - R2 says it does great on an R7 crop cameraCanon ain't going to give you a proper normal zoom for this camera - in fact they gave you 18.9 x 1.6, a lens starting at 30 mm fovI hate to say it, but send it back and start overyou can't be stuck with a primary use lens like thisthe R8 + RF 24-105,and tele with the pop can sized RF 70-200 F4LYou did. And you may be right. There’s nothing seriously wrong with the R50, except that lens. It’s hard as the R8 although appealing with the 24-50, telephoto optics are HUGE on it. Period. Dunno man, gonna sleep on it but I may return it.

RLight wrote:MAC wrote:RLight wrote:m100 wrote:RLight wrote:Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.......7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on..I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.htmlAnd it seems Canon does things in generations if you will..Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs..I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details....Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...The EF-S 10-18mm STM, 18-55mm STM and 55-250mm STM are all great lenses and are cheap right now.I am interested in how those lenses work on the R50, R10 and R7.Who knows what lenses are in the future ?Those should be fantastic adapted, but bigger obviously, and you bring up a good point.I’m struggling over here as I love and hate the R50 and couldn’t put my finger on it. It’s the stock lens. I feel Canon has compromised too deeply on it. I did not see this one coming even though it’s obvious from the spec sheet.duh...I have to say Canon did a good job on the R50, but the stock 18-45, stinks.if you look back, I kept telling you...Sure it’s sharp, no copy issues, but man, to start at f/4.5 and 18mm, it’s a double hit coming from a perfect copy of an EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3.duh again, and you had a perfect copy on the mPeople complained that was a slow lens, they’re wrong. The RF-S 18-45 f/4.5-6.3 is…of couse it is, it is garbage...That lens is the Achilles heel of the R50 kit.you could always get the RF 15-35 f2.8 IS - R2 says it does great on an R7 crop cameraCanon ain't going to give you a proper normal zoom for this camera - in fact they gave you 18.9 x 1.6, a lens starting at 30 mm fovI hate to say it, but send it back and start overyou can't be stuck with a primary use lens like thisthe R8 + RF 24-105,and tele with the pop can sized RF 70-200 F4LYou did. And you may be right. There’s nothing seriously wrong with the R50, except that lens. It’s hard as the R8 although appealing with the 24-50, telephoto optics are HUGE on it. Period. Dunno man, gonna sleep on it but I may return it.you did well with R50 + the 55-210 in sunny conditionsone option is you could keep that setup just for those outdoor ops - because of the great AF, it beat the m 55-200 setupbut you also need to think long run - the children will have indoor school events where you'll need reach - been there done that and my 55-250 stm never cut ityou could bag a dual cam option and carry R8 as wellfor me RF F4L + -3.2 EV @ F4 + DXO PL6 and deep prime will take me where I want to go

That’s not a bad point. The R50 and 55-210 is unique. A part of me wonders if the 18-150 would be wise. I really want something low profile. R8 and 24-50 seems a touch too big. The R50 isn’t, but that stock lens is iffy. Gonna give it some leeway, but I’m not hopeful. It’s the least of evils.

RLight wrote:That’s not a bad point. The R50 and 55-210 is unique. A part of me wonders if the 18-150 would be wise. I really want something low profile. R8 and 24-50 seems a touch too big. The R50 isn’t, but that stock lens is iffy. Gonna give it some leeway, but I’m not hopeful. It’s the least of evils.Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Lensyou save $100 on the $500 lens when you buy the R10 kit

MAC wrote:RLight wrote:That’s not a bad point. The R50 and 55-210 is unique. A part of me wonders if the 18-150 would be wise. I really want something low profile. R8 and 24-50 seems a touch too big. The R50 isn’t, but that stock lens is iffy. Gonna give it some leeway, but I’m not hopeful. It’s the least of evils.Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Lensyou save $100 on the $500 lens when you buy the R10 kitThe R10 lacks the “brains” of the R50. That’s a big con. Real shame as otherwise I’d be all over it. No, it’s the R8, R50, R6 II or wait something out. I can tell you this side of having Canons next gen processors, don’t go back. Something happened with that R6 II, DIGICX isn’t the same one. This is literally a DIGIC8 moment, DIGIC8 brought 4K, eye-AF. Big deals.DIGICX post R6 II brings next gen jpegs, AF and the video output shows both, I might add.

RLight wrote:MAC wrote:RLight wrote:That’s not a bad point. The R50 and 55-210 is unique. A part of me wonders if the 18-150 would be wise. I really want something low profile. R8 and 24-50 seems a touch too big. The R50 isn’t, but that stock lens is iffy. Gonna give it some leeway, but I’m not hopeful. It’s the least of evils.Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Lensyou save $100 on the $500 lens when you buy the R10 kitThe R10 lacks the “brains” of the R50. That’s a big con. Real shame as otherwise I’d be all over it. No, it’s the R8, R50, R6 II or wait something out. I can tell you this side of having Canons next gen processors, don’t go back. Something happened with that R6 II, DIGICX isn’t the same one. This is literally a DIGIC8 moment, DIGIC8 brought 4K, eye-AF. Big deals.DIGICX post R6 II brings next gen jpegs, AF and the video output shows both, I might add.you could move your feet with 16, 24, 35 primesbut that is so inconvenient for run and gun.forget about your storage argument - it is about carry...I know you like to carry light, but with the right strap, the bigger setup feels lightI'll be running initially with R8 and RF 24-105 F4L and RF 85 F2my black rapid or op tech flex make my setup feel light

I totally feel you. I shot the Nikon 1 system for a decade and loved it. When a couple of my lenses died last summer, I knew it was time for a new small system. Without much research I went to the local camera shop and they said the r10 would be perfect. I did ask about lenses and was told all the rf glass and ef/ef-s would work. I bought in, but the camera and lenses are much bigger, the glass slower or terribly expensive. I feel like I have been chasing my tail trying to find glass to replace the basic functionality of my Nikon V2. On the upside, iso noise has come a long way, baby!I didn’t even know the M system existed, and it might have been a better fit, but perhaps buying into another dying system wouldn’t have been the smartest idea either.I did get the 18-45, but knew it would only be for outdoors. I got the 18-150 and have generally liked it - pretty sharp to 100mm and inside good to iso6400. But the f3.5 is misleading. It is only 3.5 at 18mm. By 20mm it is f4 and from 62mm on it is f6.3. How, in 10 years, have lenses got darker? Come on, Canon. Crop moms need to shoot indoor band concerts, etc. I don’t want full frame glass. I want tiny, competent crop lenses that let me document my indoor life.Fingers crossed that a little patience will help solve the glass problem.

DivaDreamer wrote:I totally feel you. I shot the Nikon 1 system for a decade and loved it. When a couple of my lenses died last summer, I knew it was time for a new small system. Without much research I went to the local camera shop and they said the r10 would be perfect. I did ask about lenses and was told all the rf glass and ef/ef-s would work. I bought in, but the camera and lenses are much bigger, the glass slower or terribly expensive. I feel like I have been chasing my tail trying to find glass to replace the basic functionality of my Nikon V2. On the upside, iso noise has come a long way, baby!I didn’t even know the M system existed, and it might have been a better fit, but perhaps buying into another dying system wouldn’t have been the smartest idea either.I did get the 18-45, but knew it would only be for outdoors. I got the 18-150 and have generally liked it - pretty sharp to 100mm and inside good to iso6400. But the f3.5 is misleading. It is only 3.5 at 18mm. By 20mm it is f4 and from 62mm on it is f6.3. How, in 10 years, have lenses got darker? Come on, Canon. Crop moms need to shoot indoor band concerts, etc. I don’t want full frame glass. I want tiny, competent crop lenses that let me document my indoor life.Fingers crossed that a little patience will help solve the glass problem.sorry, patience will not resolve, there will be no RF-s f1.4 glass like m system has, they want to drive folks to FF

RLight wrote:m100 wrote:RLight wrote:Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.1. The Autofocus is really slick. Canon refers to this as "Deep learning technology EOS iTR AF X" which is present on the R6 II and newer R8 and now R50. What's interesting is watching it in effect. On paper, it looks like it's just newer subject detection algorithms. Wrong. There is now variable size block partitioning going on with AF, which is similar to what's used in x264/x265 motion estimation technology for video compression. The block partitioning AF is only visible thus far, in Auto mode. Canon may be playing with this in R50 and soon R8, maybe. But there is something special going on here where no offense to my R3, the R50 has a leg up in "Auto" AF. Sure, my eye-controlled AF ain't going out of style, but man, the camera is yet smarter still. It makes Sony look bad. Fro isn't wrong, the R50 may be superior to the Z9, he could be right, the R50 is superior to my R3 in the auto-AF department. Lets hope Canon back ports this software. It could be hardware too, which would be unfortunate. I suspect it is (both)..2. Handling. The R50 "passes" a couple tests... Fits in my cupholder with a lens attached (facing down), fits in my drawer for storage at home, fits in my driver's seat door handle, again, lens down. Light enough you forget it's on you, very M-like. Handles a bit better than the M50 Mark II, too. The LCD takes more to pull out, which is annoying. Buttons are well placed. That ISO button is the most customizable of the bunch. AF or Digital TC seem to be the best fits for it, but, maybe just plain ol ISO might be too. More on that another time..3. Image quality. The R50 shares the same R10 sensor, but, like the R6 Mark II's new Deep Learning AF, I noticed it has subtle but definite improvements to SOOC JPEG. There’s something going on with fine detail rendering. Also the R50 just doesn't miss a beat with metering; it is smarter than my R3 with dealing with mixed lighting environments; I found myself adjusting my exposure comp over the weekend in restaurants with my parents (visiting) for bright-backlit. R50? Nope. AWB? The R3 in video although smart, it can, even with it's super smart AWB, goof with mixed lighting, still. R50? Nope. It's really an impressive technological terror in the processing department. My R3 may be a beast, but Canon has clearly been busy in the software and probably processing department the past year improving things yet further. Not that the R3 is a poor performer, it smokes an R5, but the R50 leaves em both behind. In RAW image quality, the R50 performs in practice what Photons To Photons has shown, better in higher ISOs than the M50 Mark II, but not quite as good as an M6 Mark II. Very close. All to say about 1/3-1/2 stop improvement in low light performance vs the M50/M50 II, but a touch behind the M6 II / R7..4. Lenes. Oh Canon, this is where things for the R50 turn negative, even me as a Canon-fan am going to turn negative. Although I personally don't mind 28mm, or 18mm on a crop, the 18mm on the RF-S 18-45 is more like 18.9mm, which is a thing if you look at the patents for these lenses, there's no such thing as 18mm, it's 18.02, or 18.7, or in this case, I think it's 18.9999999 so as to not be 19mm. Loosing 3mm although a somewhat big deal, loosing 3.9mm? Hurts more. I can tell. Ugh. f/4.5? Hurts indoors. The R50 may have picked up about 1/3-1/2 stops of noise performance, but gave up more on the glass. I have to say my R3 although it was here to stay, it's here to stay. Geeze Canon, give us some faster native RF-S glass, and, give us wider RF-S glass. Although I was thrilled with the performance of the 18-45 and 55-210 at the fair and Phinizy swap in Sunny16-like conditions, indoors? Nope. Wide angle? Nope. Although we knew this, like yeah, it's true. Now those darker lenses don't hurt you outside, again, this camera has another 1/3 stop at least in ISO performance, so shooting say ISO800 doesn't really show up like it would an M50, but indoors when you're punching 2000-4000 because you lost another 2/3 stops on the stock lens? Yeah..5. Video. I've touched on this a bit, the R50's 4K output is FANTASTIC. I put this in caps as it's nice and saturated, but not overly so, 4K is detailed, I did get a heat warning because I was exposing my R50 to a TON of sunlight yesterday at the swamp and shooting a ton, which is notable, it didn't stop me but there is definite concern for heat-exhaustion of this guy and 4K. I'm really, really happy of the footage from the fair. It's almost like being there. For a "cheap" camera too relatively speaking. Makes smartphones look really poor. Now IBIS would've been nice though, I'll grant you that. It handles static hand-holding compensation well, but walking and pushing a stroller on a wooded deck at the swamp? Yeah. Good for what it is though, excellent in fact..6. About that dust cleaning. 2 pieces, I blew them off with my mouth, a no-no, oh well, worked fine at the swamp. I used a prim and proper air rocket earlier today even though I didn't spot any dust. You should get an air rocket..7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on..I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.htmlAnd it seems Canon does things in generations if you will..Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs..I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details....Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...The EF-S 10-18mm STM, 18-55mm STM and 55-250mm STM are all great lenses and are cheap right now.I am interested in how those lenses work on the R50, R10 and R7.Who knows what lenses are in the future ?Those should be fantastic adapted, but bigger obviously, and you bring up a good point.I’m struggling over here as I love and hate the R50 and couldn’t put my finger on it. It’s the stock lens. I feel Canon has compromised too deeply on it. I did not see this one coming even though it’s obvious from the spec sheet. I have to say Canon did a good job on the R50, but the stock 18-45, stinks. Sure it’s sharp, no copy issues, but man, to start at f/4.5 and 18mm, it’s a double hit coming from a perfect copy of an EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3. People complained that was a slow lens, they’re wrong. The RF-S 18-45 f/4.5-6.3 is… That lens is the Achilles heel of the R50 kit.I liked the EF-S 10-18mm STM.  Sold it because I thought the EF-M 11-22mm was better.I recall it fast to get focus.  It should be able to keep up with the R50 ?EF-S 18-55mm STM is fast to get focus too ? It is Canon's best crop kit lens ?I can see how someone who already owns those lenses and likes them could like using them on a R50.We could put an adapter on the R50 and just get over it ?

m100 wrote:RLight wrote:m100 wrote:RLight wrote:Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.1. The Autofocus is really slick. Canon refers to this as "Deep learning technology EOS iTR AF X" which is present on the R6 II and newer R8 and now R50. What's interesting is watching it in effect. On paper, it looks like it's just newer subject detection algorithms. Wrong. There is now variable size block partitioning going on with AF, which is similar to what's used in x264/x265 motion estimation technology for video compression. The block partitioning AF is only visible thus far, in Auto mode. Canon may be playing with this in R50 and soon R8, maybe. But there is something special going on here where no offense to my R3, the R50 has a leg up in "Auto" AF. Sure, my eye-controlled AF ain't going out of style, but man, the camera is yet smarter still. It makes Sony look bad. Fro isn't wrong, the R50 may be superior to the Z9, he could be right, the R50 is superior to my R3 in the auto-AF department. Lets hope Canon back ports this software. It could be hardware too, which would be unfortunate. I suspect it is (both)..2. Handling. The R50 "passes" a couple tests... Fits in my cupholder with a lens attached (facing down), fits in my drawer for storage at home, fits in my driver's seat door handle, again, lens down. Light enough you forget it's on you, very M-like. Handles a bit better than the M50 Mark II, too. The LCD takes more to pull out, which is annoying. Buttons are well placed. That ISO button is the most customizable of the bunch. AF or Digital TC seem to be the best fits for it, but, maybe just plain ol ISO might be too. More on that another time..3. Image quality. The R50 shares the same R10 sensor, but, like the R6 Mark II's new Deep Learning AF, I noticed it has subtle but definite improvements to SOOC JPEG. There’s something going on with fine detail rendering. Also the R50 just doesn't miss a beat with metering; it is smarter than my R3 with dealing with mixed lighting environments; I found myself adjusting my exposure comp over the weekend in restaurants with my parents (visiting) for bright-backlit. R50? Nope. AWB? The R3 in video although smart, it can, even with it's super smart AWB, goof with mixed lighting, still. R50? Nope. It's really an impressive technological terror in the processing department. My R3 may be a beast, but Canon has clearly been busy in the software and probably processing department the past year improving things yet further. Not that the R3 is a poor performer, it smokes an R5, but the R50 leaves em both behind. In RAW image quality, the R50 performs in practice what Photons To Photons has shown, better in higher ISOs than the M50 Mark II, but not quite as good as an M6 Mark II. Very close. All to say about 1/3-1/2 stop improvement in low light performance vs the M50/M50 II, but a touch behind the M6 II / R7..4. Lenes. Oh Canon, this is where things for the R50 turn negative, even me as a Canon-fan am going to turn negative. Although I personally don't mind 28mm, or 18mm on a crop, the 18mm on the RF-S 18-45 is more like 18.9mm, which is a thing if you look at the patents for these lenses, there's no such thing as 18mm, it's 18.02, or 18.7, or in this case, I think it's 18.9999999 so as to not be 19mm. Loosing 3mm although a somewhat big deal, loosing 3.9mm? Hurts more. I can tell. Ugh. f/4.5? Hurts indoors. The R50 may have picked up about 1/3-1/2 stops of noise performance, but gave up more on the glass. I have to say my R3 although it was here to stay, it's here to stay. Geeze Canon, give us some faster native RF-S glass, and, give us wider RF-S glass. Although I was thrilled with the performance of the 18-45 and 55-210 at the fair and Phinizy swap in Sunny16-like conditions, indoors? Nope. Wide angle? Nope. Although we knew this, like yeah, it's true. Now those darker lenses don't hurt you outside, again, this camera has another 1/3 stop at least in ISO performance, so shooting say ISO800 doesn't really show up like it would an M50, but indoors when you're punching 2000-4000 because you lost another 2/3 stops on the stock lens? Yeah..5. Video. I've touched on this a bit, the R50's 4K output is FANTASTIC. I put this in caps as it's nice and saturated, but not overly so, 4K is detailed, I did get a heat warning because I was exposing my R50 to a TON of sunlight yesterday at the swamp and shooting a ton, which is notable, it didn't stop me but there is definite concern for heat-exhaustion of this guy and 4K. I'm really, really happy of the footage from the fair. It's almost like being there. For a "cheap" camera too relatively speaking. Makes smartphones look really poor. Now IBIS would've been nice though, I'll grant you that. It handles static hand-holding compensation well, but walking and pushing a stroller on a wooded deck at the swamp? Yeah. Good for what it is though, excellent in fact..6. About that dust cleaning. 2 pieces, I blew them off with my mouth, a no-no, oh well, worked fine at the swamp. I used a prim and proper air rocket earlier today even though I didn't spot any dust. You should get an air rocket..7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on..I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.htmlAnd it seems Canon does things in generations if you will..Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs..I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details....Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...The EF-S 10-18mm STM, 18-55mm STM and 55-250mm STM are all great lenses and are cheap right now.I am interested in how those lenses work on the R50, R10 and R7.Who knows what lenses are in the future ?Those should be fantastic adapted, but bigger obviously, and you bring up a good point.I’m struggling over here as I love and hate the R50 and couldn’t put my finger on it. It’s the stock lens. I feel Canon has compromised too deeply on it. I did not see this one coming even though it’s obvious from the spec sheet. I have to say Canon did a good job on the R50, but the stock 18-45, stinks. Sure it’s sharp, no copy issues, but man, to start at f/4.5 and 18mm, it’s a double hit coming from a perfect copy of an EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3. People complained that was a slow lens, they’re wrong. The RF-S 18-45 f/4.5-6.3 is… That lens is the Achilles heel of the R50 kit.I liked the EF-S 10-18mm STM. Sold it because I thought the EF-M 11-22mm was better.I recall it fast to get focus. It should be able to keep up with the R50 ?EF-S 18-55mm STM is fast to get focus too ? It is Canon's best crop kit lens ?I have an f3.5 version vs the newer f4 version.The f3.5 version was known to be the bestCanon keeps going in the opposite directionI can see how someone who already owns those lenses and likes them could like using them on a R50.We could put an adapter on the R50 and just get over it ?

MAC wrote:m100 wrote:RLight wrote:m100 wrote:RLight wrote:Some random thoughts regarding the R50... No order.1. The Autofocus is really slick. Canon refers to this as "Deep learning technology EOS iTR AF X" which is present on the R6 II and newer R8 and now R50. What's interesting is watching it in effect. On paper, it looks like it's just newer subject detection algorithms. Wrong. There is now variable size block partitioning going on with AF, which is similar to what's used in x264/x265 motion estimation technology for video compression. The block partitioning AF is only visible thus far, in Auto mode. Canon may be playing with this in R50 and soon R8, maybe. But there is something special going on here where no offense to my R3, the R50 has a leg up in "Auto" AF. Sure, my eye-controlled AF ain't going out of style, but man, the camera is yet smarter still. It makes Sony look bad. Fro isn't wrong, the R50 may be superior to the Z9, he could be right, the R50 is superior to my R3 in the auto-AF department. Lets hope Canon back ports this software. It could be hardware too, which would be unfortunate. I suspect it is (both)..2. Handling. The R50 "passes" a couple tests... Fits in my cupholder with a lens attached (facing down), fits in my drawer for storage at home, fits in my driver's seat door handle, again, lens down. Light enough you forget it's on you, very M-like. Handles a bit better than the M50 Mark II, too. The LCD takes more to pull out, which is annoying. Buttons are well placed. That ISO button is the most customizable of the bunch. AF or Digital TC seem to be the best fits for it, but, maybe just plain ol ISO might be too. More on that another time..3. Image quality. The R50 shares the same R10 sensor, but, like the R6 Mark II's new Deep Learning AF, I noticed it has subtle but definite improvements to SOOC JPEG. There’s something going on with fine detail rendering. Also the R50 just doesn't miss a beat with metering; it is smarter than my R3 with dealing with mixed lighting environments; I found myself adjusting my exposure comp over the weekend in restaurants with my parents (visiting) for bright-backlit. R50? Nope. AWB? The R3 in video although smart, it can, even with it's super smart AWB, goof with mixed lighting, still. R50? Nope. It's really an impressive technological terror in the processing department. My R3 may be a beast, but Canon has clearly been busy in the software and probably processing department the past year improving things yet further. Not that the R3 is a poor performer, it smokes an R5, but the R50 leaves em both behind. In RAW image quality, the R50 performs in practice what Photons To Photons has shown, better in higher ISOs than the M50 Mark II, but not quite as good as an M6 Mark II. Very close. All to say about 1/3-1/2 stop improvement in low light performance vs the M50/M50 II, but a touch behind the M6 II / R7..4. Lenes. Oh Canon, this is where things for the R50 turn negative, even me as a Canon-fan am going to turn negative. Although I personally don't mind 28mm, or 18mm on a crop, the 18mm on the RF-S 18-45 is more like 18.9mm, which is a thing if you look at the patents for these lenses, there's no such thing as 18mm, it's 18.02, or 18.7, or in this case, I think it's 18.9999999 so as to not be 19mm. Loosing 3mm although a somewhat big deal, loosing 3.9mm? Hurts more. I can tell. Ugh. f/4.5? Hurts indoors. The R50 may have picked up about 1/3-1/2 stops of noise performance, but gave up more on the glass. I have to say my R3 although it was here to stay, it's here to stay. Geeze Canon, give us some faster native RF-S glass, and, give us wider RF-S glass. Although I was thrilled with the performance of the 18-45 and 55-210 at the fair and Phinizy swap in Sunny16-like conditions, indoors? Nope. Wide angle? Nope. Although we knew this, like yeah, it's true. Now those darker lenses don't hurt you outside, again, this camera has another 1/3 stop at least in ISO performance, so shooting say ISO800 doesn't really show up like it would an M50, but indoors when you're punching 2000-4000 because you lost another 2/3 stops on the stock lens? Yeah..5. Video. I've touched on this a bit, the R50's 4K output is FANTASTIC. I put this in caps as it's nice and saturated, but not overly so, 4K is detailed, I did get a heat warning because I was exposing my R50 to a TON of sunlight yesterday at the swamp and shooting a ton, which is notable, it didn't stop me but there is definite concern for heat-exhaustion of this guy and 4K. I'm really, really happy of the footage from the fair. It's almost like being there. For a "cheap" camera too relatively speaking. Makes smartphones look really poor. Now IBIS would've been nice though, I'll grant you that. It handles static hand-holding compensation well, but walking and pushing a stroller on a wooded deck at the swamp? Yeah. Good for what it is though, excellent in fact..6. About that dust cleaning. 2 pieces, I blew them off with my mouth, a no-no, oh well, worked fine at the swamp. I used a prim and proper air rocket earlier today even though I didn't spot any dust. You should get an air rocket..7, Buffering when using a fast UHS-I card and C-RAW although a concern, it does clear faster than an M50 / M50 II, even though it's only UHS-I, but, the number of shots you can rattle off is still limited, even if it clears faster than an M50. It hasn't problem-problem, but at times, yes, you miss a shot or two. I use the fastest FPS mode though, may play with this, much like RAWs, as time goes on..I think Canon's up to something with overhauling their processing, be it AF, metering, SOOC JPEGs, video. The upcoming R1 and possibly R5 firmware update, may be really worthwhile. Although Canon's been relatively quiet about things, they've been busy cooking in the kitchen so to speak. I think new owners of the R8 are going to be spoiled as I gather they get these benefits too if only from the early reviews (below)https://www.popco.net/zboard/view.php?id=dica_review&page=&category=&sn1=&divpage=&sn=&ss=&sc=&select_arrange=&desc=&no=1140&ReviewUrl=2_EOSR8_40fps.htmlAnd it seems Canon does things in generations if you will..Regarding vs the M. This is the big elephant in the room. It's a (the R50) better camera. I'll say it. Better system (RF-S that is)? Glass folks. If you need / want glass the M has and the R doesn't? Stick to your M's. If however you're a soccer mom shooting Sunny16? Oh, the R50 kills it, Canon has accomplished its mission here of producing a superior product, in the same form factor, granted some compromises like darker glass that isn't as wide on the stock lens. I don't get hit rate problems, shutter shock problems, and the SOOC output is much better on both the stills and video. Like, a lot better. Thats' a big one to fight for the M where newer tech is leaving the M behind. Should Canon produce more glass for the RF-S platform, namely a fast normal prime in the 35mm equivalence, and an ultra wide option of some kind? That's it. But until they do? I love and hate the R50. Love for outdoors and travel. Hate for indoors and "fast glass" needs..I do think this is a mission accomplished though with keeping a cost-effective dedicated camera competitive with smartphones. The R50 out the gate just cuts the smartphones out from under the legs with a 55-210 kit in reach, and video output. Really badly. That RF-S 55-210 is a sharp sucker, good color and even more reach than the EF-M 55-200, while maintaining a similar form factor, with that wicked AF system. And, the JPEGs are good enough to beg the question do mere mortals need RAW? No. Pros, yes. I'll be playing with the RAWs here shortly, not that I really think it matters, this is the same R10 sensor, which is decent. But curious how the output comes out as the devil is in them details....Cameras like the R50 and twin lens kit or the R10 and 18-150 kit certainly make better options to take to the park, zoo, fair, or hiking. Think on the go, outside. But at this junction, they lack indoors, unless you plan to throw a fast FF RF prime on it. And, most importantly lack a wide angle option, period. All to say crop definitely maintains a presence now with the R50 of covering cost effective, small compact needs for the masses, and for folks like myself that want something "better" to carry than an R3, R5 or even R8 to the zoo. Yes, the R50 is. I had an R and 24-240 before, that's not something to take to the zoo. Too big, heavy. The 18-150 on the other hand is a fantastic lens on the M, and presumably R10 or R50. The EF-M 55-200 was a fantastic lens on the M50 / M50 II. The newer updated 55-210 version on the R50, moreso. Really happy with the intended purpose of the kit lenses. But at the same time, grumpy because even though I have a FF option, it'd be nice to have a 22/2 or 11-22 for portable-power, indoors...The EF-S 10-18mm STM, 18-55mm STM and 55-250mm STM are all great lenses and are cheap right now.I am interested in how those lenses work on the R50, R10 and R7.Who knows what lenses are in the future ?Those should be fantastic adapted, but bigger obviously, and you bring up a good point.I’m struggling over here as I love and hate the R50 and couldn’t put my finger on it. It’s the stock lens. I feel Canon has compromised too deeply on it. I did not see this one coming even though it’s obvious from the spec sheet. I have to say Canon did a good job on the R50, but the stock 18-45, stinks. Sure it’s sharp, no copy issues, but man, to start at f/4.5 and 18mm, it’s a double hit coming from a perfect copy of an EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3. People complained that was a slow lens, they’re wrong. The RF-S 18-45 f/4.5-6.3 is… That lens is the Achilles heel of the R50 kit.I liked the EF-S 10-18mm STM. Sold it because I thought the EF-M 11-22mm was better.I recall it fast to get focus. It should be able to keep up with the R50 ?EF-S 18-55mm STM is fast to get focus too ? It is Canon's best crop kit lens ?I have an f3.5 version vs the newer f4 version.The f3.5 version was known to be the bestCanon keeps going in the opposite directionI can see how someone who already owns those lenses and likes them could like using them on a R50.We could put an adapter on the R50 and just get over it ?I never tried the f/4 version.   Sure did take a lot of shots with the f/3.5 version.With the R50's great sensor and focus super powers I could put up with an adapter.