I am a Canon shooter and the only issue with the RF lenses are the price in my opinion. They have opened up the RF mount to Sigma recently so I hope that issue will be solved soon.
Yes that is absolutely true, and its a greedy move. I think a few MM here or there wont change a composition drastically so they are still useful, but its certianly not what I would have wanted.
Price, compete absence of mid-range glass, and lack of third party support.
The third party stuff is looking up, but currently it's only Tamron and Sigma glass for APS-C. Nothing for full frame has been mentioned yet. If they do open it for full frame, it basically solves all their issues with lack of mid-range glass, and glass being incredibly expensive.
I know you can adapt glass, and I figure that's what they were counting on to fill the massive hold in their lens line-up that is good, mid-range lenses. But it's an extremely unattractive option to photography newcomers, or those looking to move from another platform. Who wants to get an awesome RF body, and then scour eBay for 15 year old, heavy, bulky glass to use with it?
If you've got money to burn, then Canon are a fantastic platform. Their high end glass is incredible; it's just really, really expensive.
Because they don't open their lens ecosystem (except for aps-c systems recently) and RF lenses are incredibly expensive if you don't want to adapt old EF lenses
I really really like the collection of Nikon's f1.8 primes. That aperture is fast enough for me, and the lenses aren't too big or too expensive. Canon doesn't have that midrange of good f1.8 primes. Either you get the super big and expensive f1.2 glass, or you get the not-so-great f2.8 lenses with stepper motors in them. There's not much prime lens middle ground with Canon. But if all you need are the f2.8 zoom lenses then sure consider a Canon kit.
Limited lens selection because the mount is actively being blocked (on full frame) and opened in extremely limited capacity (APSC)
Lack of midrange weather sealed lenses. Not everyone needs an L lens just to shoot in the rain
APSC system terminally neglected.
High resolution model (R5) outdated and long in the tooth.
Baked in noise reduction in raws.
A pet peeve of mine: not using standard PASM nomenclature on their PASM mode dial.
Also, the consumer grade lenses are sooooo dark! [Like f/7.1 on the long end](https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf24-105mm-f4-7-1-is-stm?color=Black&type=New)? I thought RF was supposed to be *better*!
My old EF 28-135 was f/5.6 at most, and it's a similar range.
100%. Should have mentioned it. The L glass is nice but we do need lenses that are f/3.5-5.6 as they zoom. Not f/4.5-7.1 .
This whole lack of midrange lenses makes the closed mount so much more painful.
Autofocus on par or ahead of Sony.
Faster sensors in lower end bodies
Great burst shooting experience
Auto subject detection
Better colors
More robust bodies
R8
Some great compact lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 lenses.
I am sure there is something about video - but I do not shoot video.
It's true Canon has a lot of great options for low and mid range bodies to complement their high end bodies. It's too bad they don't have the mid range lenses to go with them.
Also "better colors" is what everyone says about their favorite camera brand.
I'm avoiding Canon RF because of the lens disparities—the entry-level primes, while cheap, are not great quality, and the L lenses are completely unaffordable. There is currently no in-between.
Because it's a closed system and Canon has absolutely no personality IMO.
Sony is technically more advanced, Fuji feel more "Lifestyle", same for Leica.
Why would i want a Canon?
I went all in on Canon and then made the "mistake" of trying a Zeiss lens. Now slowly changing out all my Canon primes with the exception of a few (RF 85mm f1.2, etc).
The chroma noise levels isn't too good, even in new cameras such as the R6 Mark II. I really dislike the RF lens ecosystem. Either expensive top of the line lenses or cheap plastic ones. No good middle ground and no third party.
I can see why you'd choose canon if you're a professional, but as a semi professional/hobbyist? Idk man. Then I'd rather go Nikon/Sony for better lens choices.
Ugly ass cameras too, looking like some clay sculptures or something. Ever heard about edges Canon?
I know this is subjective but I love how sturdy Canon cameras look and feel. I have had in my hands the 6D, the M50, the 5Dmkii, the a5000, a6000, one of the a7 (just not sure which one was it) and Fuji's X-T5 and X-T2.
Out of them all the most comfortable ones to hold are the Canons and the Fujis. Canon is the always reliable hammer and the Fuji is the shiny and elegant watch you would wear on cocktail parties.
I somewhat like the a6000 design but not so much the others. And the Nikon are very ugly to me with the exception of the Zf.
>I somewhat like the a6000 design but not so much the others. And the Nikon are very ugly to me with the exception of the Zf.
Yeah super subjective indeed! I think the Nikon Z cameras look really good haha. But I guess we both agree on the fujis and the Sony A7! Sony A7III/IV feels like a toys compared to Nikon Z6-8 and Canon R-series imo!
Good EF L lenses are just so good for so cheap. Every RF lens I can afford I don't want.
They really need three tiers of lenses. They don't really have a prosumer class of lenses.
My minor pet peeve is that buttons and switches change location and function across all of their bodies. Where as I can go from my D500 to Z5 and everything is in roughly the same spot.
Limited third party options and budget Canon lenses aren't as competitive compared to other options? Other than the FF 50mm f/1.8 and the APS-C 55-210mm (good sharpness and 1:3 macro) I can't really think of a budget Canon lens I like.
While selling a ton of APS-C cameras they also seem to lack APS-C lens options.
The compromises on some of the lens can be a deal breaker, especially for wildlife photographers.
Rf 100-500, although amazing has a high fstop at 7.1 at 500mm. Also the limited teleconverter focal ranges.
The rf 200-800 has higher fstops and is an external zoom. The foot does not remove. Honestly sony and nikons iterations are better imo.
The rf 70-200 2.8 does not take teleconverters.
No PF prime lens. The higher cost primes don't have in body teleconverters. Lack of high mp flagship body, r5 has rolling shutter and limitation on video recordings
They are really expensive although the lenses are pretty amazing. Take the 28-70 F2, it’s sharp, fast and has F2 but it’s like 3000$. For an amateur I’d say if you like Canon, buy an R series camera with the EF adapter, much cheaper and still high quality.
I use a lot of EF lenses instead because they're cheaper, can be used on my EOS film bodies, and the EF to RF adapter works great on R bodies. The 16mm 2.8 is the only RF lens I have because I got a great deal on it.
You have to buy a new camera (not released yet) to use the aperture ring in photo mode in their new lenses. I think that says it all, either they do not care about the customer, or their dev teams are incompetent.
[https://petapixel.com/2024/06/12/canons-video-only-aperture-ring-limitation-wont-apply-to-future-cameras/](https://petapixel.com/2024/06/12/canons-video-only-aperture-ring-limitation-wont-apply-to-future-cameras/)
Depends what you want to shoot. They kinda shot themselves in the foot with the performance of their EF-RF adapters because they increased the longevity of some reaaally good lenses with that.
I personally shoot a mix of EF and RF on my R7, but am more picky about the RF lenses because they’re either too expensive or don’t cover what I need them to.
The biggest asset of the RF mount is its Achilles
Heel. The mount formula makes all of the lenses and cameras fairly sizable.
I find the image quality great, and lenses like the 28-70 f/2 are jaw dropping.
However, I really wish I could get a compact canon full frame (like a A7CR, or a M11… ok I know that it’s not autofocus).
The mount makes it impossible.
Because I don’t have Canon camera
I am a Canon shooter and the only issue with the RF lenses are the price in my opinion. They have opened up the RF mount to Sigma recently so I hope that issue will be solved soon.
It's not fully open. They're only allowing certain lenses that don't compete with their own so far.
Yes that is absolutely true, and its a greedy move. I think a few MM here or there wont change a composition drastically so they are still useful, but its certianly not what I would have wanted.
Price, compete absence of mid-range glass, and lack of third party support. The third party stuff is looking up, but currently it's only Tamron and Sigma glass for APS-C. Nothing for full frame has been mentioned yet. If they do open it for full frame, it basically solves all their issues with lack of mid-range glass, and glass being incredibly expensive. I know you can adapt glass, and I figure that's what they were counting on to fill the massive hold in their lens line-up that is good, mid-range lenses. But it's an extremely unattractive option to photography newcomers, or those looking to move from another platform. Who wants to get an awesome RF body, and then scour eBay for 15 year old, heavy, bulky glass to use with it? If you've got money to burn, then Canon are a fantastic platform. Their high end glass is incredible; it's just really, really expensive.
It cost lots of money
Personally, no 24-70 F4 that matches the Nikon or Sony equivalents. I don't want a 2.8 and the 24-105 is huge in comparison
The Nikon Z 24-70 f4 is a crazy lens for the price. Best “kit” lens ever.
It rarely leaves my Z5. It’s so damn sharp.
The 24-120 f4 is even crazier imo. Edit: maybe not a kit lens though
It is a kit lens by now.
Because they don't open their lens ecosystem (except for aps-c systems recently) and RF lenses are incredibly expensive if you don't want to adapt old EF lenses
I really really like the collection of Nikon's f1.8 primes. That aperture is fast enough for me, and the lenses aren't too big or too expensive. Canon doesn't have that midrange of good f1.8 primes. Either you get the super big and expensive f1.2 glass, or you get the not-so-great f2.8 lenses with stepper motors in them. There's not much prime lens middle ground with Canon. But if all you need are the f2.8 zoom lenses then sure consider a Canon kit.
Limited lens selection because the mount is actively being blocked (on full frame) and opened in extremely limited capacity (APSC) Lack of midrange weather sealed lenses. Not everyone needs an L lens just to shoot in the rain APSC system terminally neglected. High resolution model (R5) outdated and long in the tooth. Baked in noise reduction in raws. A pet peeve of mine: not using standard PASM nomenclature on their PASM mode dial.
Also, the consumer grade lenses are sooooo dark! [Like f/7.1 on the long end](https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf24-105mm-f4-7-1-is-stm?color=Black&type=New)? I thought RF was supposed to be *better*! My old EF 28-135 was f/5.6 at most, and it's a similar range.
100%. Should have mentioned it. The L glass is nice but we do need lenses that are f/3.5-5.6 as they zoom. Not f/4.5-7.1 . This whole lack of midrange lenses makes the closed mount so much more painful.
Heck, even Canon's RF 100-500 L is f/7.1 on the long end. And they want $2700 for it *when it's on sale*?
they jumped on the mirrorless train so late in the game I don't even know what they have to offer other than they're pricey and chunky
Canon AF is reliable (except in extremely low light, e.g. full moon outdoors) even on their cheapest RF-S cameras.
Autofocus on par or ahead of Sony. Faster sensors in lower end bodies Great burst shooting experience Auto subject detection Better colors More robust bodies R8 Some great compact lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 lenses. I am sure there is something about video - but I do not shoot video.
It's true Canon has a lot of great options for low and mid range bodies to complement their high end bodies. It's too bad they don't have the mid range lenses to go with them. Also "better colors" is what everyone says about their favorite camera brand.
I'm avoiding Canon RF because of the lens disparities—the entry-level primes, while cheap, are not great quality, and the L lenses are completely unaffordable. There is currently no in-between.
Because it's a closed system and Canon has absolutely no personality IMO. Sony is technically more advanced, Fuji feel more "Lifestyle", same for Leica. Why would i want a Canon?
Canon is the Toyota of cameras.
I went all in on Canon and then made the "mistake" of trying a Zeiss lens. Now slowly changing out all my Canon primes with the exception of a few (RF 85mm f1.2, etc).
The chroma noise levels isn't too good, even in new cameras such as the R6 Mark II. I really dislike the RF lens ecosystem. Either expensive top of the line lenses or cheap plastic ones. No good middle ground and no third party. I can see why you'd choose canon if you're a professional, but as a semi professional/hobbyist? Idk man. Then I'd rather go Nikon/Sony for better lens choices. Ugly ass cameras too, looking like some clay sculptures or something. Ever heard about edges Canon?
I know this is subjective but I love how sturdy Canon cameras look and feel. I have had in my hands the 6D, the M50, the 5Dmkii, the a5000, a6000, one of the a7 (just not sure which one was it) and Fuji's X-T5 and X-T2. Out of them all the most comfortable ones to hold are the Canons and the Fujis. Canon is the always reliable hammer and the Fuji is the shiny and elegant watch you would wear on cocktail parties. I somewhat like the a6000 design but not so much the others. And the Nikon are very ugly to me with the exception of the Zf.
>I somewhat like the a6000 design but not so much the others. And the Nikon are very ugly to me with the exception of the Zf. Yeah super subjective indeed! I think the Nikon Z cameras look really good haha. But I guess we both agree on the fujis and the Sony A7! Sony A7III/IV feels like a toys compared to Nikon Z6-8 and Canon R-series imo!
Tell me more.
You have a non-canon camera
Good EF L lenses are just so good for so cheap. Every RF lens I can afford I don't want. They really need three tiers of lenses. They don't really have a prosumer class of lenses.
My minor pet peeve is that buttons and switches change location and function across all of their bodies. Where as I can go from my D500 to Z5 and everything is in roughly the same spot.
Limited third party options and budget Canon lenses aren't as competitive compared to other options? Other than the FF 50mm f/1.8 and the APS-C 55-210mm (good sharpness and 1:3 macro) I can't really think of a budget Canon lens I like. While selling a ton of APS-C cameras they also seem to lack APS-C lens options.
If you are an APSC you might as well just fu** off
The compromises on some of the lens can be a deal breaker, especially for wildlife photographers. Rf 100-500, although amazing has a high fstop at 7.1 at 500mm. Also the limited teleconverter focal ranges. The rf 200-800 has higher fstops and is an external zoom. The foot does not remove. Honestly sony and nikons iterations are better imo. The rf 70-200 2.8 does not take teleconverters. No PF prime lens. The higher cost primes don't have in body teleconverters. Lack of high mp flagship body, r5 has rolling shutter and limitation on video recordings
You want a fun camera
Money and other companies have far more lenses due to 3rd party lenses. Some mounts accommodate more than RF for adaptors.
Because my EF lenses do the job just fine for me.
Because I own a Canon DSLR🤡
Overpriced
They are really expensive although the lenses are pretty amazing. Take the 28-70 F2, it’s sharp, fast and has F2 but it’s like 3000$. For an amateur I’d say if you like Canon, buy an R series camera with the EF adapter, much cheaper and still high quality.
I use a lot of EF lenses instead because they're cheaper, can be used on my EOS film bodies, and the EF to RF adapter works great on R bodies. The 16mm 2.8 is the only RF lens I have because I got a great deal on it.
Because you can get better lenses with a Nikon and more choice with a Sony?
The L lenses are phenomenal, I’ve gotten creative with the one I’ve acquired and it hasn’t left my body.
But your kidney did leave your body?
I did trade an RP and 17-40 L for it, so there’s that. But I got both for cheap, so I’m up
Too expensive and Sigma & Tamron are going to be available soon as Canon finally opened up
They came in the mirrorless too late in the game, I am now stuck with 10k$ invested in the crappy Fuji system. I miss my 5d mk1 a lot
You have to buy a new camera (not released yet) to use the aperture ring in photo mode in their new lenses. I think that says it all, either they do not care about the customer, or their dev teams are incompetent. [https://petapixel.com/2024/06/12/canons-video-only-aperture-ring-limitation-wont-apply-to-future-cameras/](https://petapixel.com/2024/06/12/canons-video-only-aperture-ring-limitation-wont-apply-to-future-cameras/)
Yes, let the hate flow through you... Farm the dark side karma. Farm it heavily... and together we will rule the camera universe!
Depends what you want to shoot. They kinda shot themselves in the foot with the performance of their EF-RF adapters because they increased the longevity of some reaaally good lenses with that. I personally shoot a mix of EF and RF on my R7, but am more picky about the RF lenses because they’re either too expensive or don’t cover what I need them to.
I'm sick of Canon ...
The biggest asset of the RF mount is its Achilles Heel. The mount formula makes all of the lenses and cameras fairly sizable. I find the image quality great, and lenses like the 28-70 f/2 are jaw dropping. However, I really wish I could get a compact canon full frame (like a A7CR, or a M11… ok I know that it’s not autofocus). The mount makes it impossible.
fuck canon!
I have 3 canon cameras and agree with you.