|
To you it seems, but not to the (tens of) thousands who will buy it. I'm interested, so what does that do to your statement...
Unless you are willing to buy a new set of lenses to go with a different brand camera, Canon has a 'virtual' monopoly. Which is why price/performance comparisons against their other models is valid. I can spend £2K for the R or £6K to get the same lenses but in a Sony mount (if available, Sony doesn't have a pancake lens like Canon offers, the 500mm teles, or have the 150-600mm zooms from Sigma and Tamron available in native FE mounts).
From looking at some tests with EF lenses and various converters all is not rosy with EF-->FE adaption. OK for AF-C stills, OKish for AF-S stills, not so good for AF-S video, Eye-AF, or long lenses. Then there are the likes of this Anyone try Canon EF 70-200 2.8 on A7RII?: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
The Canon adaptor acts merely in effect as a passthough device like teleconverters or extention tubes. The R body, from what I've read I've read (although this could be wrong), switches to EF protocols when an EF lens is mounted (C-->C native). Putting an EF lens on a Sony alpha requires two way conversion of Sony and Canon protocols by the adaptor (C-->S and S-->C conversion). The Canon protocols are not released to 3rd party manufacturers and have been reverse engineered but not, it seems, without issues.
I don't follow why releasing a £2K R body softens the price blow for a £6K RX body. Also if willing to spend £6K on a RX mainly for video use, wouldn't a £6.9K C200 be a better option? Only 15% or so more...
Dynamic Range performance comparision of 5DIV, 6DII and A7III. Is it worth spending another £6K plus to get an extra 0.25/ |
|