JustUs7 wrote:MAC wrote:JustUs7 wrote:Almost did it. Had the kit on hold. Offered me less than I planned for my kit so I had a bail. Couldn’t in good conscience shell out $3,000 plus out of pocket.So I contacted MPB. They are offering what I expected for my kit. So I decided to part with my RP body only. I’ll ship that to MPB, then it’s only about $2,000 after taxes for the body only after the funds from MPB. And I still have my 24-240 to pair with it for hiking.Now I need to wait for my shop to have it in stock. Which is trying my patience because B&H has it, but I want to support local. I don’t need it right away, but my son does have some games coming up. So hopefully not too long.u have IS on your 3 RF lenseswhy not keep your RP, and put in for the R8 - like meReplacing a camcorder and Christmas video can go longer than two hours. Don’t want to pay attention. And I want a separate video and still card. Plus I already had to rescue my RP due to environmental damage once. R6II isn’t water proof but it will be better sealed than the RP. I suspect the R8 won’t be. Maybe next year I’ll add my first L lens. I suspect the 24-240 will hold value better than the RP once the R8 comes out, so as good a time as any to sell.I have IS on four of mine. But the 16 f/2.8 will benefit from the IBIS on vacation this summer too.the R8 is a weather sealed bodyyour other nits seem minor to meyou could add your first L lens this year instead - the RF 24-105 F4L - imo, the backup, or second body with a different lens to cut down on lens changes far exceeds your nits

MAC wrote:JustUs7 wrote:MAC wrote:JustUs7 wrote:Almost did it. Had the kit on hold. Offered me less than I planned for my kit so I had a bail. Couldn’t in good conscience shell out $3,000 plus out of pocket.So I contacted MPB. They are offering what I expected for my kit. So I decided to part with my RP body only. I’ll ship that to MPB, then it’s only about $2,000 after taxes for the body only after the funds from MPB. And I still have my 24-240 to pair with it for hiking.Now I need to wait for my shop to have it in stock. Which is trying my patience because B&H has it, but I want to support local. I don’t need it right away, but my son does have some games coming up. So hopefully not too long.u have IS on your 3 RF lenseswhy not keep your RP, and put in for the R8 - like meReplacing a camcorder and Christmas video can go longer than two hours. Don’t want to pay attention. And I want a separate video and still card. Plus I already had to rescue my RP due to environmental damage once. R6II isn’t water proof but it will be better sealed than the RP. I suspect the R8 won’t be. Maybe next year I’ll add my first L lens. I suspect the 24-240 will hold value better than the RP once the R8 comes out, so as good a time as any to sell.I have IS on four of mine. But the 16 f/2.8 will benefit from the IBIS on vacation this summer too.the R8 is a weather sealed bodyBut not as robust. And if it’s on par with the RP’s sealed body, well, I already nearly wrecked that with sweat once Had to have the electronics boards replaced.your other nits seem minor to meMaybe. But there are differences. The Christmas video cutting off when the last child is opening their last gift vs having four hours more cushion. That’s a moment that can’t be replaced. And I really like the idea of separating video and stills cards.you could add your first L lens this year instead - the RF 24-105 F4L - imo, the backup, or second body with a different lens to cut down on lens changes far exceeds your nitsI could add the L lens now. Having the money isn’t the issue. How and when I choose to spend it is my choice. And the 24-240 is no sacrifice. It’s a great lens and I’m not totally certain I want to sacrifice the range for a red ring. It’s stabilized, only loses a stop to 105, and has a USM focusing motor. Even if I did the R8 I might still hold off on the L this year.My wife uses an M6II when we’re on vacation and we tend to use complementary lenses as it is. But we have a different eye for different things which is great too.

JustUs7 wrote:MAC wrote:JustUs7 wrote:MAC wrote:JustUs7 wrote:Almost did it. Had the kit on hold. Offered me less than I planned for my kit so I had a bail. Couldn’t in good conscience shell out $3,000 plus out of pocket.So I contacted MPB. They are offering what I expected for my kit. So I decided to part with my RP body only. I’ll ship that to MPB, then it’s only about $2,000 after taxes for the body only after the funds from MPB. And I still have my 24-240 to pair with it for hiking.Now I need to wait for my shop to have it in stock. Which is trying my patience because B&H has it, but I want to support local. I don’t need it right away, but my son does have some games coming up. So hopefully not too long.u have IS on your 3 RF lenseswhy not keep your RP, and put in for the R8 - like meReplacing a camcorder and Christmas video can go longer than two hours. Don’t want to pay attention. And I want a separate video and still card. Plus I already had to rescue my RP due to environmental damage once. R6II isn’t water proof but it will be better sealed than the RP. I suspect the R8 won’t be. Maybe next year I’ll add my first L lens. I suspect the 24-240 will hold value better than the RP once the R8 comes out, so as good a time as any to sell.I have IS on four of mine. But the 16 f/2.8 will benefit from the IBIS on vacation this summer too.the R8 is a weather sealed bodyBut not as robust.the digital picture states:not sure where you found it to be the same as the RP and less than the R6IIAnd if it’s on par with the RP’s sealed body, well, I already nearly wrecked that with sweat once Had to have the electronics boards replaced.the digital picture states the RP hasthe digital picture says the R6II hasso I suppose that buys you a tad of longer life with that better mechanical shutter going longer - but I intend to use the R8's e-shutter extensively - with craw it gets 10 seconds of shooting at 20 fpsyour other nits seem minor to meMaybe. But there are differences. The Christmas video cutting off when the last child is opening their last gift vs having four hours more cushion. That’s a moment that can’t be replaced. And I really like the idea of separating video and stills cards.It's just a matter of using some of your m6II and RP batteries about every hour or soyou could add your first L lens this year instead - the RF 24-105 F4L - imo, the backup, or second body with a different lens to cut down on lens changes far exceeds your nitsI could add the L lens now. Having the money isn’t the issue. How and when I choose to spend it is my choice.of course, to each their ownAnd the 24-240 is no sacrifice. It’s a great lens and I’m not totally certain I want to sacrifice the range for a red ring.sure, it is a hiking lens, keep it if you wantbut you also have the RF 100-400 for reach, and many folks use the RF 24-105 F4L + RF 100-400 comboIt’s stabilized, only loses a stop to 105, and has a USM focusing motor.Even if I did the R8yes, gve it considerationI might still hold off on the L this year.of coursewhen ready, consider that the RF 24-105 F4L has its foot in the door for inside shots that focus in moonlight @f4 with the -6.5 ev spec at f1.2 and -3.2 EV @ f4My wife uses an M6II when we’re on vacation and we tend to use complementary lenses as it is. But we have a different eye for different things which is great too.sounds fun, consider that the m6II, RP, and R8 all use the same battery - when I do events, these three cameras will be carried on my person, and having the same battery is actually a plus when you own and carry all three of them

JustUs7 wrote:But I don’t need to convince you lot. I need to convince my wife. 😁Don't you feel that the 24mp and no third party lenses are quite limiting?  Compared to a7iv for example with 33 mp and many affordable lenses ?

Rashadain wrote:JustUs7 wrote:But I don’t need to convince you lot. I need to convince my wife. 😁Don't you feel that the 24mp and no third party lenses are quite limiting? Compared to a7iv for example with 33 mp and many affordable lenses ?1) the A74 is limiting on video - only a 29 min record time and the op is replacing a camcorder and films for hours2) the op already has 4 RF lenses - when you are already invested in RF, 3) third party lenses ain't going to matter3) the sony is about 1.3 stops worse focusing in low light4) the sony is only 10 fps vs R8/R6II shooting 40 fps and 20 fps - the canon's are 2-4 times faster and better for sportsDPReview says the same thing - if you are into video and sports - Canon wins over the sony. Add that to the investment the OP has in RF glass, it is a slam dunk

MAC wrote:Rashadain wrote:JustUs7 wrote:But I don’t need to convince you lot. I need to convince my wife. 😁Don't you feel that the 24mp and no third party lenses are quite limiting? Compared to a7iv for example with 33 mp and many affordable lenses ?1) the A74 is limiting on video - only a 29 min record time and the op is replacing a camcorder and films for hours2) the op already has 4 RF lenses - when you are already invested in RF, 3) third party lenses ain't going to matter3) the sony is about 1.3 stops worse focusing in low light4) the sony is only 10 fps vs R8/R6II shooting 40 fps and 20 fps - the canon's are 2-4 times faster and better for sportsDPReview says the same thing - if you are into video and sports - Canon wins over the sony. Add that to the investment the OP has in RF glass, it is a slam dunkCan’t add a whole lot to that.We had a Sigma lens for six years with our old Camera. By the time we replaced the camera, the lens was kind of falling apart. The rubber zoom ring had expanded and fell off. It wouldn’t hold its zoom position. Lens flare had gotten really bad. Our original Canon kit lenses (18-55 and 75-300) are still as good as new (got those in 2010). And those are the cheapest lenses. So no. I don’t mind a little premium for OEM.24 megapixels are more than plenty. I’ve never printed larger than A3+, and 24 gives 300 ppi for that. 99% of our keepers end up in 11x14 family photo albums or shared on digital frames. So even cropping isn’t an issue.Finally, I tried an A7III when we got the RP. I found the ergonomics unfamiliar and off-putting.Oh - and I’ve got five RF lenses now.  And not much need for more unless I upgrade the ones I have.

MAC wrote:Rashadain wrote:JustUs7 wrote:But I don’t need to convince you lot. I need to convince my wife. 😁Don't you feel that the 24mp and no third party lenses are quite limiting? Compared to a7iv for example with 33 mp and many affordable lenses ?1) the A74 is limiting on video - only a 29 min record time and the op is replacing a camcorder and films for hours2) the op already has 4 RF lenses - when you are already invested in RF, 3) third party lenses ain't going to matter3) the sony is about 1.3 stops worse focusing in low light4) the sony is only 10 fps vs R8/R6II shooting 40 fps and 20 fps - the canon's are 2-4 times faster and better for sportsDPReview says the same thing - if you are into video and sports - Canon wins over the sony. Add that to the investment the OP has in RF glass, it is a slam dunkMakes total sense if video is a factor i guess.  Thx

Rashadain wrote:JustUs7 wrote:But I don’t need to convince you lot. I need to convince my wife. 😁Don't you feel that the 24mp and no third party lenses are quite limiting? Compared to a7iv for example with 33 mp and many affordable lenses ?I've just switched from the 30MP R to the 24 MP R6II. So far, I haven't noticed the difference in resolution at all. In terms of linear resolution, the A7IV gives 14% more than the R6II. I think I would rarely notice that difference. As to the third party lens issue, it all depends on whether Canon has what you want at the price you can afford. For me, the answer is a resounding yes. In fact, Canon has several lenses that you can't get for the Sony, even using an adapter. The 16 F2.8, 85 F2, and 100-400 F5.6-8 are all lenses that I have, but couldn't have, or any close-enough equivalent, with a Sony (or any mount except Canon RF). Having owned and used those lenses, I would find any system that didn't have them quite limiting. I know there are plenty of lenses available for other mounts that are not (yet) available for RF, but I don't feel the need to own any of them. Others may have different preferences.

Alastair Norcross wrote:Rashadain wrote:JustUs7 wrote:But I don’t need to convince you lot. I need to convince my wife. 😁Don't you feel that the 24mp and no third party lenses are quite limiting? Compared to a7iv for example with 33 mp and many affordable lenses ?I've just switched from the 30MP R to the 24 MP R6II. So far, I haven't noticed the difference in resolution at all. In terms of linear resolution, the A7IV gives 14% more than the R6II. I think I would rarely notice that difference. As to the third party lens issue, it all depends on whether Canon has what you want at the price you can afford. For me, the answer is a resounding yes. In fact, Canon has several lenses that you can't get for the Sony, even using an adapter. The 16 F2.8, 85 F2, and 100-400 F5.6-8 are all lenses that I have, but couldn't have, or any close-enough equivalent, with a Sony (or any mount except Canon RF). Having owned and used those lenses, I would find any system that didn't have them quite limiting. I know there are plenty of lenses available for other mounts that are not (yet) available for RF, but I don't feel the need to own any of them. Others may have different preferences.All three are lenses I enjoy.  The light weight of the 100-400.  The close focusing of the 85 and the 100-400.   An ultra wide that fits in a backpack side pocket.Personally I think the 85 f/2 renders portraits beautifully outdoors.   It’s no f/1.2, but for just my family it’s great.  Nobody is paying me.

Alastair Norcross wrote:Rashadain wrote:JustUs7 wrote:But I don’t need to convince you lot. I need to convince my wife. 😁Don't you feel that the 24mp and no third party lenses are quite limiting? Compared to a7iv for example with 33 mp and many affordable lenses ?I've just switched from the 30MP R to the 24 MP R6II. So far, I haven't noticed the difference in resolution at all. In terms of linear resolution, the A7IV gives 14% more than the R6II. I think I would rarely notice that difference. As to the third party lens issue, it all depends on whether Canon has what you want at the price you can afford. For me, the answer is a resounding yes. In fact, Canon has several lenses that you can't get for the Sony, even using an adapter. The 16 F2.8, 85 F2,It's one of the three 85mm lenses I own. I like the stabilization a lot, portability is nice, the bokeh doesn't look very smoothest though. If you desperately need a 0.5 magnification factor in your 85mm lens this is the only one (I don't, as there are a lot of 90 and 100mm options for that). And if you need minimal distortion this lens is the best 85mm.  I'd happily trade that magnification factor, minimal distortion and stabilization for a larger aperture though.My Sigma EF 85mm f/1.4 has a larger aperture, but it's big and heavy, 1200 grams. I use it at home indoors in case my A7IV is occupied by the 50mm f/1.2 GM.  Indoors f/1.4 would be preferred for gathering light, but f/2.0 is better for getting enough DOF being relatively close to the subject. The f/2.0 of the Sigma gives nice round bokeh shapes, while the f/1.4 helps the AF in low light. The combo never hunts for focus.For travel I use the Sigma FE 85mm f/1.4 DN.  It's around 130 grams heavier than the RF f/2.0, but giving twice the light and a shallower DOF and bokeh with a smoother character that's worth it to me. I like the AF a lot better as well, although in low light it's still not as good as the 105mm f/1.4 Art on the R5 or the 50mm GM on the A7IV.and 100-400 F5.6-8 are all lenses that I have, but couldn't have, or any close-enough equivalent, with a Sony (or any mount except Canon RF). Having owned and used those lenses, I would find any system that didn't have them quite limiting.For 85mm it gets more expensive and more heavy. The Zeiss Batis has ILIS, but you would need another lens next to it for the magnification factor, and that will add to the weight in your bag. When picking the right macro lens you will get way better AF for macro work in return though. I've found the AF quite frustrating for close ups.I can see the appeal of the RF 100-400mm, if that kind of focal range is your thing. I might get one one day if I see a very good deal.I know there are plenty of lenses available for other mounts that are not (yet) available for RF, but I don't feel the need to own any of them. Others may have different preferences.I have. I rather prefer a light weight uncompromised large aperture portrait 85mm lens in stead of a landscape 85mm lens with half way macro baked in compromise with a full stop darker aperture. f/2.0 is fine for head shots or head and shoulders portraits, however, for environmental full body portraits f/2.0 lacks the ability to give enough subject separation.

I have. I rather prefer a light weight uncompromised large aperture portrait 85mm lens in stead of a landscape 85mm lens with half way macro baked in compromise with a full stop darker aperture. f/2.0 is fine for head shots or head and shoulders portraits, however, for environmental full body portraits f/2.0 lacks the ability to give enough subject separation.Depends, of course.  If I’m in an area where I’m taking a full body environmental portrait, then to me the environment shouldn’t be obliterated.  I think f2 is enough.   I might even step down to 2.8 or 4.

JustUs7 wrote:I have. I rather prefer a light weight uncompromised large aperture portrait 85mm lens in stead of a landscape 85mm lens with half way macro baked in compromise with a full stop darker aperture. f/2.0 is fine for head shots or head and shoulders portraits, however, for environmental full body portraits f/2.0 lacks the ability to give enough subject separation.Depends, of course. If I’m in an area where I’m taking a full body environmental portrait, then to me the environment shouldn’t be obliterated.That's impossible anyway, as the distance to the subject needs to be large enough to get that environment in the frame, and as such that distance will be too large to allow you to obliterate that environment. Sometimes a large aperture only isn't enough, while just a telephoto focal length isn't enough as well. Sometimes you need both.I think f2 is enough. I might even step down to 2.8 or 4.For head and shoulders, yes. Environmental: no.  I usually stop down the 105mm f/1.4 Art a bit for rounder bokeh, however, even that one needs to be wide open sometimes.

JustUs7 wrote:I have. I rather prefer a light weight uncompromised large aperture portrait 85mm lens in stead of a landscape 85mm lens with half way macro baked in compromise with a full stop darker aperture. f/2.0 is fine for head shots or head and shoulders portraits, however, for environmental full body portraits f/2.0 lacks the ability to give enough subject separation.Depends, of course. If I’m in an area where I’m taking a full body environmental portrait, then to me the environment shouldn’t be obliterated. I think f2 is enough. I might even step down to 2.8 or 4.We can each justify our own choice by pointing to specific uses that our choice, but not the other, excels at. I find the RF 85 to be preferable, for me, to all the other 85s with much further close focusing abilities. The RF's close focusing ability is in no way a "half way macro baked in compromise". Actually, I don't know whether it is or not, because, on reflection, I have no idea what that phrase means. The RF is certainly no kind of compromise. It's an excellent lens that focuses a lot closer (less than half the minimum focus distance) than other 85s. Macro or not isn't the point. That just launches a silly, and I mean really silly, argument about whether to use the word 'macro' for a lens that won't do 1:1 projection on the sensor. The point is that the RF 85 focuses a lot closer, and I mean really a lot closer, than any other 85. For me, that's a huge advantage. It would be great if it also had a maximum aperture of F1.4 or F1.2, and was the same size, weight, and cost. But those are physical impossibilities, so I'm not going to spend time moaning about the laws of physics. Having used the RF 85 (and 16 and 100-400), I would never contemplate switching to a system that didn't have access to those lenses. That would be far too limiting for me. Other people have different limits.

Rashadain wrote:MAC wrote:Rashadain wrote:JustUs7 wrote:But I don’t need to convince you lot. I need to convince my wife. 😁Don't you feel that the 24mp and no third party lenses are quite limiting? Compared to a7iv for example with 33 mp and many affordable lenses ?1) the A74 is limiting on video - only a 29 min record time and the op is replacing a camcorder and films for hours2) the op already has 4 RF lenses - when you are already invested in RF, 3) third party lenses ain't going to matter3) the sony is about 1.3 stops worse focusing in low light4) the sony is only 10 fps vs R8/R6II shooting 40 fps and 20 fps - the canon's are 2-4 times faster and better for sportsDPReview says the same thing - if you are into video and sports - Canon wins over the sony. Add that to the investment the OP has in RF glass, it is a slam dunkMakes total sense if video is a factor i guess. ThxNot just video but 40 fps vs. 10 fps. is a huge advantage for Canon. And personally it handles better than the A7IV.  When I tried it in the store the Sony with the 24-105/4 G felt tight in my right hand whereas the R6MKII was very comfortable to hold.Since I also shoot with Sony I considered the A7IV and compared it vs. the R6MKII. I like the 33 MP but the FPS and handling won me over to the R6MKII. Besides, I hate using an adapter to shoot with my Canon 16-35/4 L IS with the A7IV. I just don't trust the AF capabilities if I use Metabones or the Sigma EF to e-mount adapter.Talking about the 16-35/4, I just tried it around lunchtime today with my R6MKII.

Rashadain wrote:JustUs7 wrote:But I don’t need to convince you lot. I need to convince my wife. 😁Don't you feel that the 24mp and no third party lenses are quite limiting? Compared to a7iv for example with 33 mp and many affordable lenses ?If you are starting off to your first FF body, yes. You need to be north of $3,000 to get started with a decent combo.

Picking it up from the post office today! Thanks to the info in this thread I got a great deal. Maybe I’ll have time to post a couple of images before they close the doors. ☹️And it’s home!   Charging up the batteries.  Sadly too busy to drive today.   🤷🏼‍♂️

I’ve never been much of a GAS kind of guy…. But going to mirrorless just over 1 year ago,  has really gotten me to start buying more lenses (about to buy the 4th one) and to buy another mirrorless… but sold the first. Gear buying and swapping all over the place.All the while I’ve been saying, if only they made such and such lens, I’d buy that too 😀 lol Having fun though, and never shot such good bird shots, so I guess that’s what matters most 👍

dmartin92 wrote:I have reasons too.I am 61 and I want one.If I am not going to allow myself a little fun now, then when ?Were it that this site were not going down on April 10th, I wouldn't mention this, but as it is, I will let out a bit more.I am super happy with my R6 mk2. I look at the price and I think, "that's what it cost". There was just something about this camera, I knew it would be essential, almost, to my becoming the person that I want to be. Not my core "inner self", but the outside part that people see. But even so, the outside part touches the inside part, somewhere.Oddly, I look at the photo below, from Saturday, and I am sure that I made the right decision. The photo is very personal, for me personally, because it represents my release from the clutches of winter 2022/2023.Over in the headphone forum I see that Sennheiser has released a HD660S2.Based on everything that I have read in the big thread in the headphone forum, I would like the S2 better than I like my HD660S. And I like my HD660S headphones, a lot. But I can survive without them, the S2. Maybe I will get the S2in May 2024. But either way, it's not a big issue. The current price is around 600 Dollars.The R6 mk2 was something different. And the photo below tells me I made the right decision.Normally I would just delete a comment like this before posting it. Close the browser window before pushing the "Post" button. Too many things in it where people would be able to attack me as being a nutcase. But the site is going away, so what the heck.