Can we all just have a big f***ing laugh about this...

[kaylee]

Quote

CANON USA: The Canon RF 50mm F1.2 L USM will be available in October 2018 for an estimated retail price of $2299

[Inazuma]

Regardless if the crop is 1.5x, 1.64x, 1.7x or 1.8x, it's still massively inconvenient if you plan on shooting stills and video, unless you don't mind the crop for stills too. 

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, User said:

- Yes but, I can still use my 4 old 5DM2 batteries with the R body, so I'll rest just a little bit easier.

Many $$$$$$$$$$$$ of savings right there!

[Nrubloc]

[kaylee]

1 hour ago, Inazuma said:

Regardless if the crop is 1.5x, 1.64x, 1.7x or 1.8x, it's still massively inconvenient if you plan on shooting stills and video, unless you don't mind the crop for stills too. 

In all seriousness, I cant stand the high crop factor cams. Its a fookin hybrid camera, for stills AND video. give me a break!

 

[Django]

What about the 58mm f0.95 from Nikon rumoured at $4-6K? where are the LOLZ about that one?

Lack of affordable primes? Canon has a 35mm f1.8 with IS & Macro for $499. That's $350 cheaper than Nikon's 35mm f1.8 for Z series.

Now I get the disappointment over the 4K crop. It's massive, amounts to no standard, it's just plain annoying.

The workaround for FF (and yes there shouldn't be one)  is to shoot FHD. 4K for close-up shots.

I feel like one of those EF adapters should have been a focal reducer and/or that the new lens line-up should have included a fast ultra-wide angle.

 

 

 

[MdB]

14 minutes ago, Django said:

What about the 58mm f0.95 from Nikon rumoured at $4-6K? where are the LOLZ about that one?

I think I may have. When it was rumoured on the fanboy sites it was the most amazing thing ever. When reality struck and it was a $6k behemoth that is MF only... LOLZ. 

The 50/1.2 from Nikon won't be a dime cheaper. Wonder if we'll dig this up then (in a few years when it actually finally lands). 

In the mean time instead of spending $3k on a miraculous f/2 zoom lens, we can instead all rush out and spend $2400 on a Nikon f/2.8 zoom plus another $250 for an adapter and LOLZ all the way to the bank with our very savvy $350 saving Because that Canon is clearly RIDICULOUSLY overpriced. 

LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[JurijTurnsek]

That Nikon 2.8 zoom will have 24mm. Big difference. Also, you need to consider the T value of the f2.0 zoom. And IBIS. Also, freaking f2.8 DOF on FF is already damn shallow, just improve the high ISO performance Canon, sheesh.

[Nrubloc]

If one has purchased an expensive “native” prime lens for any system or in this case one of the new to be released Canon RF ones, but cannot really use it as the focal length it was intended and purchased for due to excessive crop in 4K, then what’s the point really.

It’s not just only about any new initial lens price structures, but if your unable to use the focal length as it’s printed on the “tin”, then the lens is not as useful. Most people who invest such sums in native lenses, like to be able to get better use and experiences since it should be able to be used normally with a cameras various modes and function categories. Besides costs, “usability” also means value to some as well.

I would imagine of course the new Canon RF mount lenses being supported by future cameras, that would allow more usability for these new lenses in a future fully capable 4K model they release. In that case, I guess it may make a little more “future” sense to some.

A possibly excellent 1080 FHD image from the Canon EOS R (full-frame) can be obtained, and is fine for many if that is desired, but it almost makes the 4K option just a spare feature with the limitations provided. Of course, this is not the only time large crop factors have been introduced and it seems some brands just still can’t get past that.

Among various camera brands, there are always workarounds when using third party lenses, adapters and such, but with native lenses, it doesn’t even matter in this case because the 4K crop issue cannot be circumvented, since it is the only built in version/option you would get in 4K. So, it would be a real limitation for some.

[MdB]

1 hour ago, JurijTurnsek said:

That Nikon 2.8 zoom will have 24mm. Big difference. Also, you need to consider the T value of the f2.0 zoom. And IBIS. Also, freaking f2.8 DOF on FF is already damn shallow, just improve the high ISO performance Canon, sheesh.

Hahaha sounds like a bunch of excuses. Sooooo 1 stop difference is lens is unimportant, but going from crop to full frame is a world away. Do people have an actual clue? 

[JurijTurnsek]

4 minutes ago, MdB said:

Hahaha sounds like a bunch of excuses. Sooooo 1 stop difference is lens is unimportant, but going from crop to full frame is a world away. Do people have an actual clue? 

I'm a firm APS-C believer, FF is overkill for most people IMO.

[Nikkor]

But it's not s35mm, it's more like gh5 territory if I'm not mistaken.

[OliKMIA]

7 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I don't get what the fuz is about. Canon have always been expensive with their top lenses. Its not like the MF Nikon 0.95 is going to be for free.

Btw, how much is Sony's 50mm f1.2? Oh that's right.

When my favorite Sony, the original A7 was released it was the same story. To few and overpriced lenses. So I wouldn't worry about it. Prices always come down eventually. Its just a problem if you have to have the latest stuff (which no one does).

Exactly, G Master lenses are not exactly affordable neither, the price of the RF 24-105 f4 is identical to the EF version. As much as I hate the Canon R camera there is nothing to write about that... Premium lenses sell for premium price...

13 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The 28-70mm F2 which is useless in video mode... $3K!!

What vast majority of potential buyers for this lens are only going to take stills. Let's no fool ourselves here, we are a tiny minority of video people.

[MdB]

25 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

But it's not s35mm, it's more like gh5 territory if I'm not mistaken.

Why not 1" or 1/2.3"? It's closer to S35 than it is any other standard format. 

[Nikkor]

5 minutes ago, MdB said:

Why not 1" or 1/2.3"? It's closer to S35 than it is any other standard format. 

m43?

"4K on the EOS R is 1.8x crop. That is starting to become a big difference. It is nowhere near the C100's FOV."

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, Django said:

The workaround for FF (and yes there shouldn't be one)  is to shoot FHD. 4K for close-up shots.

What year is it, 2009?

Shooting 1080p as a "work-around"?

We have plenty of choice for full frame 4K.

A7S II, A7R II, A7 III, A7R III, Z6, Z7, D850 and soon A7S III / Panasonic full frame.

You buy a full frame camera to shoot full frame stills and full frame video that looks the same as the stills. It's HYBRID camera.

If you want to shoot 1.8x crop, get a GH5S or a GH5. You'll have money left over for the EF Speed Booster.

I really don't understand why people are making apologies for such a shit spec.

[Simon Young]

If the Z6 has a decent rolling shutter in FX it’s an instant buy. MdB you’re a wee bit daft aren’t you?

[neon]

I don't get the surprise? So many people keep pooping on Nikon for releasing mid tier cameras with "crappy" f/1.8 lenses and "amateur" f/4 zooms. How dare!. Arguing instead they should focus on heavy expensive f/2 zooms and 1.2 primes like canon had first...while ignoring fast optics are not cheap optics. So maybe there was a reason why they did this 'crappy' f/1.8 lens lineup first as it is a better fit for the price point on the cameras, and judging by the MTF charts, those f/1.8 lenses and the new mount's inherited design freedoms should make them optically excellent without asking over 2 thousand dollar for them. Other than the "bragging rights" NOCT, everything in their roadmap seems sensible and exactly what it should be: f/4, f/2.8 zooms, 1.8 primes. Stablishing a bread and butter lineup is something canon will have to do to for it is necessary as fancy pants optics exclusively will not suite a lot of budgets out there.  

[Django]

12 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

What year is it, 2009?

Shooting 1080p as a "work-around"?

We have plenty of choice for full frame 4K.

A7S II, A7R II, A7 III, A7R III, Z6, Z7, D850 and soon A7S III / Panasonic full frame.

You buy a full frame camera to shoot full frame stills and full frame video that looks the same as the stills. It's HYBRID camera.

If you want to shoot 1.8x crop, get a GH5S or a GH5. You'll have money left over for the EF Speed Booster.

I really don't understand why people are making apologies for such a shit spec.

Why on earth would i get a $2300 M43 GH5S with wack ass AF + $600 EF speedbooster.. as a HYBRID camera replacement?!!

I am currently using FF EF glass on a 5D and C100. XT2 with adapted glass and a 1.7x crop when i need 4K.

The EOS R could potentially replace... all three!

Eye AF, DPAF + MF Focus Guide, 10-bit 4:2:2, Vari NDs, Canon colors etc.

Call me an "apologist" but those tick my boxes and i invest in glass for the long run. Bodies will get better..

Sorry but I gotta roll with this dude on the Canon hate train:

 

 

[Mattias Burling]

I don't see any apologies. I just see people that accept reality for what it is and how they will deal with it. I still don't understand why this is happening.

Why is this entire forum up in flames over a bunch of newly announced, awesome, in their own ways, cameras?

Why do we as a group choose to use the occasion for constant wining, competing, measure penises, attack and ridicule those who dont think exactly like us?

Why aren't we discussing what these new things will add to this community?

Why does everyone go to bash in the thread of their least favorite instead of having a pleasant conversation in the thread about the one that is their favorite? 

Positive posts seems to always end up in a thread about other stuff, just as flame instead of where it belongs.

3 new major announcements within a week or so + more to come = The most negative atmosphere ever on a camera forum = Psychotic

I remember when NAB, Photokina, etc made forums a fun place.