>Why would you ever buy new entry level when there is a robust used market and you can get an older prosumer level instead.

Buying used camera gear isn't really a beginner's game. It's very easy to get scammed, overpay, or buy something with problems that won't be found until later.

>What's a good, cheap fullframe camera for strictly photography?

'Do you actually need full-frame?' is the first question.

>Thank you, yeah this is really cool tech!!! I really hope they bring this to general market as well, so many things could benefit from this! Tha k you for the explanation!

It'll definitely make it into mainstream consumer cameras one day, there are just limitations that need to be overcome first.

>Canon needs to make a iso independent chip.. ever tried lightening the shadow areas in a canon digital file? It goes to crap very fast.. Recently switched to Sony for this reason, that and in body stabilization and very customizable buttons.. Nikon uses Sony chips for a good reason.

I lighten the shadows in files from my R5 all the time—they are very malleable and look great! The R5 also has IBIS, and fun-fact: Canon IBIS performs better than Sony's.

>I have been paid for my photography for almost 10 years now. I just ditched my full frame for a crop Fuji. There are very few instances where someone is going to notice the difference between full frame and crop.

By the same logic you could probably ditch your crop Fuji setup and replace it with M4/3—there are likewise few instances where someone is going to notice the difference between APS-C and M4/3...

>I think it is more a ding on the non L rf lenses. They are pretty slow for the price and some of which use plastic elements. The 85mm f2.0 rather than a 1.8 for example on the slow side and the 50mm 1.8 that definitely uses plastic elements.

The RF 85/2 lost 1/3 stop to its EF predecessor while the RF 35/1.8 gained 1/3; it's a minor difference and f/2 is definitely not slow. But yes, the variable zooms are slower at their longer ends.

Canon have been using plastic in some of their optical designs for many years now; it's nothing new or bad, and hasn't just been used in lower end models, either.

>The real issue is that canon went after both Samyang and Viltrox for making cheaper and better 85mm and 35mm rf autofocus lenses. So basically you either have to adapt older ef Lenes many of which are 20+ years old and not really made for modern sensors and AF or pay the L premium or settle for sharp but slower rf non L glass that is kinda over priced.

Yes there are some 20+ y.o. EF designs, there are also plenty of newer designs too. But I'm yet to adapt an EF lens onto RF that hasn't AF'd at least as well—if not better—on the mirrorless body than on Canon's DSLRs. As for sensors, Canon's most-demanding FF sensor is still the 50MP one in the 5DSr; in APS-C it's the 33MP one in the R7, essentially the same as that in the 90D's, so it's not like the mirrorless sensors are any more demanding than those in the DSLR lineup.

Your summary of lens options neglects to mention that 3rd party EF lenses can also be used, something that frequently gets overlooked by people complaining about a lack of options on RF. If 3rd party optics and pricing are so compelling, people can simply adapt it.

Finally, the non-L RF lens pricing is actually fairly competitive when you start comparing it to other brands and the launch prices of comparable EF models.

>I agree. But the problem is that most vintage glass is stupid heavy. The EF 85mm 1.2L which is around 700 used is like 2.5 lbs so it is a terrible carry around/travel lens.

The EF 85/1.2 is neither vintage nor a typical example of the size and weight of vintage optics.

>If you need a hybrid with great video specs for cheap Canon may not be the company for you (Fuji is who I’d recommend)

The R7 and especially the R10, are not expensive.

You sure about that?