RLight wrote: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.The decision to exclude the 24mm equivalent from standard zooms for APS-C is an imposed limitation only to segregate APS-C from FF. In all Canon's marketing materials, they mention that one advantage of FF is, you will get wider-angle lenses. As if it is an inherent advantage of FF, not an imposed one by them.

KLO82 wrote:RLight wrote: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.The decision to exclude the 24mm equivalent from standard zooms for APS-C is an imposed limitation only to segregate APS-C from FF. In all Canon's marketing materials, they mention that one advantage of FF is, you will get wider-angle lenses. As if it is an inherent advantage of FF, not an imposed one by them.exactly, it was intentional not giving 24mm in standand zooms for apsc, AND in was intentional to continue to make them slower, and slower, and darkerI have an EF-s 18-55 f3.5 -5.6 stm - some reviewers aclaimed it as a 4 star kit lensCanon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict (opticallimits.com)and also check Ken Rockwelland then what did Canon do - they modified it to start at f4and what have they done now - starting at f4.5 and reducing down to 45folks, skip this dark stuff, just use an iphone

KLO82 wrote:RLight wrote: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.The decision to exclude the 24mm equivalent from standard zooms for APS-C is an imposed limitation only to segregate APS-C from FF. In all Canon's marketing materials, they mention that one advantage of FF is, you will get wider-angle lenses. As if it is an inherent advantage of FF, not an imposed one by them.I had that thought. I think this might be the case.

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.That’s actually a really good analogy. The Nikon 1 system had fantastic auto focus, really it’s only the R50 itself that I would say is only now matching it. My wife had a Nikon 1 for a while, and it delivered fantastic results outside, I had an EOSM original w/22, it delivered results indoors, but the autofocus couldn’t hang for demanding scenarios outside. Interesting that we’ve essentially gone back in time but now Canons doing it. You nailed it. That said it doesn’t change the existing situation, unfortunately.Btw, that 18-150, when used at 18 as you say indoors, is pretty good all things considered.

MAC wrote:KLO82 wrote:RLight wrote: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.The decision to exclude the 24mm equivalent from standard zooms for APS-C is an imposed limitation only to segregate APS-C from FF. In all Canon's marketing materials, they mention that one advantage of FF is, you will get wider-angle lenses. As if it is an inherent advantage of FF, not an imposed one by them.exactly, it was intentional not giving 24mm in standand zooms for apsc, AND in was intentional to continue to make them slower, and slower, and darkerI have an EF-s 18-55 f3.5 -5.6 stm - some reviewers aclaimed it as a 4 star kit lensCanon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict (opticallimits.com)and also check Ken Rockwelland then what did Canon do - they modified it to start at f4and what have they done now - starting at f4.5 and reducing down to 45folks, skip this dark stuff, just use an iphoneThat’s actually what it comes down to interestingly enough, was mentally thinking that, but we’re thinking the same thing.Where this really hurts is I know Canon is trying to drive the R8 but the R8 is quite a bit larger. This isn’t an M200 with 22 mm.

RLight wrote: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.From my understanding (even though I don't have the first hand experience) - one way to get realistic looking JPEG is to shoot RAW with HDR PQ and highlight tone priority enabled. Then convert the RAW files to jpeg in camera or using DPP. You will get JPEGs with different looking tone curve than regular jpegs. These converted jpegs will look much more realistic than regular jpegs. And these jpegs are not similar to what you would get by just enabling highlight tone priority with regular jpeg.

RLight wrote:MAC wrote:KLO82 wrote:RLight wrote: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.The decision to exclude the 24mm equivalent from standard zooms for APS-C is an imposed limitation only to segregate APS-C from FF. In all Canon's marketing materials, they mention that one advantage of FF is, you will get wider-angle lenses. As if it is an inherent advantage of FF, not an imposed one by them.exactly, it was intentional not giving 24mm in standand zooms for apsc, AND in was intentional to continue to make them slower, and slower, and darkerI have an EF-s 18-55 f3.5 -5.6 stm - some reviewers aclaimed it as a 4 star kit lensCanon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict (opticallimits.com)and also check Ken Rockwelland then what did Canon do - they modified it to start at f4and what have they done now - starting at f4.5 and reducing down to 45folks, skip this dark stuff, just use an iphoneThat’s actually what it comes down to interestingly enough, was mentally thinking that, but we’re thinking the same thing.Where this really hurts is I know Canon is trying to drive the R8 but the R8 is quite a bit larger. This isn’t an M200 with 22 mm.I'm looking forward to an M300 and/or R100, the EVF on the M50, for me,  wasn't worth the space it wasted on the camera and in the camerabag.I used both the RP and M50 for about a year and I hated the M50. The M50 was a lot bigger than my M1, but with worse ergonomics. I loved using the RP.  With no equivalent for the EF-M 11-22, 22 and 32, I preordered the R8+24-50 and I'm eager to find out how that will do for replacing my M6II as travel cam.I'm not going to buy into a Canon APS-C system hoping for things to become available, EF-S and EF-M didn't get any serious consideration at Canon HQ. Or rather, they sold too well for the tiny amount of effort that went into them.

koenkooi wrote:RLight wrote:MAC wrote:KLO82 wrote:RLight wrote: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.The decision to exclude the 24mm equivalent from standard zooms for APS-C is an imposed limitation only to segregate APS-C from FF. In all Canon's marketing materials, they mention that one advantage of FF is, you will get wider-angle lenses. As if it is an inherent advantage of FF, not an imposed one by them.exactly, it was intentional not giving 24mm in standand zooms for apsc, AND in was intentional to continue to make them slower, and slower, and darkerI have an EF-s 18-55 f3.5 -5.6 stm - some reviewers aclaimed it as a 4 star kit lensCanon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict (opticallimits.com)and also check Ken Rockwelland then what did Canon do - they modified it to start at f4and what have they done now - starting at f4.5 and reducing down to 45folks, skip this dark stuff, just use an iphoneThat’s actually what it comes down to interestingly enough, was mentally thinking that, but we’re thinking the same thing.Where this really hurts is I know Canon is trying to drive the R8 but the R8 is quite a bit larger. This isn’t an M200 with 22 mm.I'm looking forward to an M300Canon just discontinued M200 - so M300 is unlikely, just as my wish for a M6III is unlikely since M6II was discontinued. The M50 II is the only one they are now selling, and when that is gone, m is doneM200 now officially discontinued: Canon EOS M Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)and/or R100,you might get that onethe EVF on the M50, for me, wasn't worth the space it wasted on the camera and in the camerabag.I got use to my detachable EVF on my M6III used both the RP and M50 for about a year and I hated the M50. The M50 was a lot bigger than my M1, but with worse ergonomics.I loved using the RP.me tooWith no equivalent for the EF-M 11-22, 22 and 32, I preordered the R8+24-50 and I'm eager to find out how that will do for replacing my M6II as travel cam.I ordered the R8 also and in long run am developing a travel combo alsoI'm not going to buy into a Canon APS-C system hoping for things to become available, EF-S and EF-M didn't get any serious consideration at Canon HQ. Or rather, they sold too well for the tiny amount of effort that went into them.exactly right - I'm done with APSC - which is what Canon wanted me to do

Additional thoughts.1. Setting AWB to White Priority helps indoor / low light color rendition significantly.2. Continuous AF has been renamed to Preview AF. Works great outdoors in bright conditions, indoors at f/4.5 where your ISO starts at 2500? It works decent-ish, but I am seeing some slight autofocus miss / autofocus micro adjustment issues ala G1X Mark III where I might recommend you turn it off, indoors at least on the R50 until faster native RF-S glass arrives. I did mount my RF 28-70 on it, as silly as it would sound, and ironically the non-nano USM motor and preview AF, don't really agree. All to say I would turn off indoors. Outdoors I'd leave on though, that new AF is pretty slick and I gather it may depend in part on preview AF..I'm still mulling the fate of the R50. Not yet decided. I am considering the R8, but, the dang thing is much bigger. I get Canon's trying to push us FF, but if that's the case? Can we have like a RX1 or something even smaller that's FF? Seriously, that's not a joke. It'd be nice, just saying. Now I will give kudos to the R8 and RP, they're pretty small. But they're not quite APS-C small so I'm still scratching my head here.

koenkooi wrote:I used both the RP and M50 for about a year and I hated the M50. The M50 was a lot bigger than my M1, but with worse ergonomics. I loved using the RP. With no equivalent for the EF-M 11-22, 22 and 32, I preordered the R8+24-50 and I'm eager to find out how that will do for replacing my M6II as travel cam.I am on the fence about my R8 pre-order of late.The reality of the FF RF system is that the lenses aren't getting any smaller. For travel and casual, I am really unable to give up the M6II + EF-M 11-22 + EF-M 18-150. With DxO PL5 (haven't upgraded to PL6 even) quite a lot of IQ can be extracted.M6II is the kind of camera which will be appreciated after Canon stop selling it.

cocoanud wrote:koenkooi wrote:I used both the RP and M50 for about a year and I hated the M50. The M50 was a lot bigger than my M1, but with worse ergonomics. I loved using the RP. With no equivalent for the EF-M 11-22, 22 and 32, I preordered the R8+24-50 and I'm eager to find out how that will do for replacing my M6II as travel cam.I am on the fence about my R8 pre-order of late.The reality of the FF RF system is that the lenses aren't getting any smaller. For travel and casual, I am really unable to give up the M6II + EF-M 11-22 + EF-M 18-150. With DxO PL5 (haven't upgraded to PL6 even) quite a lot of IQ can be extracted.M6II is the kind of camera which will be appreciated after Canon stop selling it.I’m chewing on it myself. The R50 certainly solves this for Sunny16, but otherwise? Not on stock lens. But at that point you’re answering with FF glass and thereby FF setup size, as the R8 and R50 are close in terms of body alone. An R50 + RF24mm f/1.8 isn’t much smaller than an R8. It’s the reverse where it bites, throwing a 100-400 on an R8? Ouch. I can stuff an RF-S 55-210 in a pocket, can’t with an RF100-400.The M6 II has the size and punch, but the shutter shock and AF miss drove me bats. The R50 solves both and has fantastic 4k, emphasis on fantastic, but gives up fast native crop glass footprint.Theres no clear winner here, just pros and cons on each.