ed rader wrote in post #18893781
so lighter body and slightly heavier prime vs heavier body and lighter prime. sounds like a wash to me. yeah performance will at some point be better but for what I shoot we ain't there yet. in a year or so I imagine
I don't understand why you would look at it in the abstract and only based on evidence from a few lenses. And I don't understand why so focus so much on primes to discredit the system when you don't bother to list more than one in your sig.
It really is simple. An RP with at RF24-105 weigh 1,210 grams when a 6D2 (to compare cameras with a similar sensor) with an EF24-105L II (lenses with more or less identical IQ) will weigh 1,585 grams, a reasonably significant difference of 375 g. You could have the extension grip on the RP and carrying the RF35 in your bag and only be carrying 10 g more than the person with the 6D2 and, sensors being roughly equivalent, have a camera that has significantly more accurate AF with much more coverage, and have a sharp 1.8 IS Macro lens in your bag as a just-in-case.
I'm not checking right now but if I recall correctly the 6D2 is more expensive than the RP, meaning that the dollar savings may be more or less proportional to the gram savings.
Here, the weight savings are mostly due to the lighter body (280 g out of 375 g), so using a "slightly heavier prime" on that body instead of using a "slightly heavier body" with a "slightly lighter lens" might still very end up with you carrying fewer grams as a result while still more conveniently delivering more or less the same IQ.
And I'm sure we might reach very similar conclusions if we compared the R and 5D4 instead of the RP and 6D2.
As I see it it's very much a winner system. The RP is usable as a comfortable travel camera, I never could have said this about my 6D...