# Interview: Understanding the Canon EOS R



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 24, 2018)

> HardwareZone had a chance to sit down with Canon executives and discuss the development of the Canon EOS R. They covered all the topics a lot of people seem to care about, like the omission of IBIS and the 1.7x crop in 4K shooting.
> 
> *Why is there no in-body image stabilization (IBIS) in the EOS R?*
> *Shoji Kaihara: *We had to look at the balance of the entire camera, like the size and other aspects. Based on that, it’s not something we are able to include in the EOS R at this time. We are quite aware that there are pros and cons to that.
> ...


*

Continue reading...


*


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

None of that is at all surprising. They used existing/old technology and therefore have all of the limitations of their current camera systems now present in their brand new mirrorless.

I know many people will defend anything Canon does, but there is no question that Canon offers much less for the money vs. their competitors. And with the EOS R, they have clearly committed to continuing this.

I've only ever used Canon. I like my Canon cameras. But I also like the benefits of new technology and forward thinking. I unfortunately have to take a loss on my glass collection as I transition to a competing brand. EOS R is not a bad camera, it's just not a great camera. And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/


----------



## amorse (Sep 24, 2018)

I thought the full interview was interesting. The Canon executives somewhat shed light on the positioning of the camera in their line when discussing why things like the joystick and control wheel were removed in favour of the M.Fn bar (emphasis mine):

"*Shoji Kaihara: *_Even though existing functions are popular, if we add on different functions, it downgrades the operability of the camera. That’s the reason behind some of the features not appearing on the EOS R.

But when you look at the price of the EOS R, you can tell where it’s going for. *It rests between the 5D and 6D*. That’s the market we’re going after, so those are the users we were thinking about. And thinking about these users, we thought this was the right balance.

It’s not like we stopped making those functions available. We’re expanding our series if you will. In other words, those functions will still be in place. *If we were to develop this into a more professional line, there’ll be other functions that best serve that market*. It’s about having the best operability for each range of cameras._"


----------



## lenspacker (Sep 24, 2018)

.... ok, thats some explanation, that they can`t .... but for what reason are there other companies (Nikon, Sony, Fuji ....) who can ..... the only thing I`ve heard from the CEO ??, is that CANON is not able to this or that... but not why they are unable to do it - - - that is a very unsatisfactory response .... at the moment I have no need to change my system - *and in future we will see, what CANON *_*is able to do.... *_


----------



## zim (Sep 24, 2018)

You beat me to it amorse that was my biggest take away from this

_"It’s not like we stopped making those functions available. We’re expanding our series if you will" _- DSLRs are not EOL any time soon.

_" If we were to develop this into a more professional line, there’ll be other functions that best serve that market. It’s about having the best operability for each range of cameras."_ - This R does not have the best operability (whatever they deicide that to be) for what Canon consider a 'Pro' camera.

Good times!


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 24, 2018)

lenspacker said:


> .... ok, thats some explanation, that they can`t .... but for what reason are there other companies (Nikon, Sony, Fuji ....) who can ..... the only thing I`ve heard from the CEO ??, is that CANON is not able to this or that... but not why they are unable to do it - - - that is a very unsatisfactory response .... at the moment I have no need to change my system - *and in future we will see, what CANON *_*is able to do.... *_


How would the “Why” Canon can’t do something now explanation help you. When they can, they will. Camera companies are not clones of each other. Competition spurs companies to do more. If you get impatient, move on. Sales figures also Spurs development and innovation.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> How would the “Why” Canon can’t do something now explanation help you. When they can, they will. Camera companies are not clones of each other. Competition spurs companies to do more. If you get impatient, move on. Sales figures also Spurs development and innovation.


I think it's just a matter of curiosity. But I Agree. Canon is likely going to be behind for quite some time. If we want/need modern features and performance, we have to face the fact that we must move on.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 24, 2018)

lenspacker said:


> .... ok, thats some explanation, that they can`t .... but for what reason are there other companies (Nikon, Sony, Fuji ....) who can ..... the only thing I`ve heard from the CEO ??, is that CANON is not able to this or that... but not why they are unable to do it - - - that is a very unsatisfactory response .... at the moment I have no need to change my system - *and in future we will see, what CANON *_*is able to do.... *_



Why is is 'unsatisfactory'? Equally valid questions are:
Why can't Sony make a decent touch screen interface?
Why can't Sony make a decent waterproofed camera
Why have Sony put an inferior LCD and EVF in the A73?
Why can't Sony put in place a decent after sales network?
Why can't Sony put out a 600mm f4l?
etc
etc
etc

The answer is that different companies have different priorities. Anyone who expects differently is being over-simplistic.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I think it's just a matter of curiosity. But I Agree. Canon is likely going to be behind for quite some time. If we want/need modern features and performance, we have to face the fact that we must move on.



We have modern features and performance. Just not the ones you are attracted by.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> We have modern features and performance. Just not the ones you are attracted by.


Fair enough. If you value ergonomics, rear tilty flippy screen and really simple menus over actual image quality and video performance, than I can understand the current appeal of Canon cameras I suppose.

For me the entire purpose of a camera is the output and I therefore value the highest quality sensor performance that I can get.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Fair enough. If you value ergonomics, rear tilty flippy screen and really simple menus over actual image quality and video performance, than I can understand the current appeal of Canon cameras I suppose.
> 
> For me the entire purpose of a camera is the output and I therefore value the highest quality sensor performance that I can get.



And when you think you are getting it then what do you do when you think the next thing, released 6 months later is the highest image quality you can get? Are you actually good enough at it for the camera? How much of a sensor difference do you really think there is?

If your goal is actually "the highest sensor quality you can get" (an extremely broad and undefined by you statement), then maybe you should go medium format?

But then the question is: How good are you compared to the camera and how does it hold you back right now? Because, honestly in this day and age, the quality is determined by you... the photographer. So in what way is your current output not good enough and how is that influenced by the camera?


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I know many people will defend anything Canon does, but there is no question that Canon offers much less for the money vs. their competitors.



Much less? That depends on your perspective. Sony being unable or unwilling to weather seal their bodies is Sony offering "much less for the money" in my book. You date a body but marry a lens collection. Since I can't trust Sony weather sealing claims on their bodies why should I trust them when it comes to their lenses? Is that a long term investment I would ever want to make?

As Mikehit pointed out, that's not the only point where Sony blows it. If their spec sheet matches everything you want and you don't care about any of their drawbacks, knock yourself out. Some of us have different needs and priorities.


----------



## amorse (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Fair enough. If you value ergonomics, rear tilty flippy screen and really simple menus over actual image quality and video performance, than I can understand the current appeal of Canon cameras I suppose.
> 
> For me the entire purpose of a camera is the output and I therefore value the highest quality sensor performance that I can get.


If sensor performance is the only thing your value in a camera then I wouldn't wait on Canon in all honesty. Sensor performance is just part of the puzzle for Canon, and not the whole game. Sony is able to prioritize sensor performance because they manufacture sensors for many many applications, from their own cameras to cell phone cameras to vehicle backup cameras to other applications still. With sensor technology impacting so many parts of Sony's business, it makes sense for them to pump resources into that. 

If you need a complete camera system and value reliability and flexibility, then buy Canon. For people who need to hold and use a heavy camera for hours on end in poor conditions, those usability features can become the difference between getting a shot and missing it. A camera body which enables a photographer to have a higher keeper rate or shoot in conditions where other cameras fail provide (in my opinion) more opportunity for many users than some of the features it is missing. 

Different tools for different users though - that's the benefit of competition!


----------



## Act444 (Sep 24, 2018)

To each his own, but I still like Canon colors the best of the major systems out there. The one time I tried out a Sony A7R, took a few shots and I disliked what appeared to be a red cast on skin tones. It wasn’t a bad camera, but that stood out to me - more PP work.

The Canon system has its shortcomings, but so do the other systems as well. We each have to weigh the pros and cons of each system and choose which best suits our needs. If needs change over time, and suddenly another system begins to make more sense, then so be it. I plan to stick with Canon for now, but I will admit that if the transition to mirrorless really takes hold, I’ll give Nikon Z a look as well. The smaller lenses and IBIS (and the higher res of the Z7) I find interesting as well. But as someone invested deeply in Canon EF, I want to see what plans Canon have for the RF series.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Fair enough. If you value ergonomics, rear tilty flippy screen and really simple menus over actual image quality...



The R out resolves the A73 and has better color science. The A73 has a little more DR at base ISO. High ISO is practically a wash. If pushed to choose, Canon's 30mp sensor is as good at 32000 as the A73's at 25600, so slight advantage to Canon.

It's disingenuous to suggest that someone buying the R doesn't care about "actual image quality." From where I'm sitting Canon's 30mp sensor wins that contest versus Sony's 24mp sensor. And if you're truly that concerned about IQ you're shooting a 42/45/50mp sensor, or medium format digital.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

Two things. 

1.) I'm not trying to defend Sony. I'm not implying Sony is the best. My statements are referring to Canons position among all camera manufacturers right now. In fact, I'm looking at both nikon and sony right now as they seem to be the best options for me.

2.) In terms of sensor performance, I'm looking for more high iso performance and dynamic range. I do mostly low light and high iso stuff (concerts, events, etc.). I have worked with my canon raw files and also sony A7III raw files. Say what you want, but the Sony files are much better quality and offer much more workability in post for my purposes.


----------



## melgross (Sep 24, 2018)

Unless there is a great need, I’m always wary of buying the first product of a new line of any product. We all should know that the first product is always eclipsed by the successor. With all the complaining I’ve seen the past few weeks, it would seem that some people really believe that this camera model is the best Canon can, or will do. It should be obvious that it isn’t.


----------



## mclaren777 (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/


No way.

I use my 5D4 as a mirrorless camera roughly 30-50% of the time and it's fantastic.

Given that the EOS R is cheaper, there's little support for your claim.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

mclaren777 said:


> No way.
> 
> I use my 5D4 as a mirrorless camera roughly 30-50% of the time and it's fantastic.
> 
> Given that the EOS R is cheaper, there's little support for your claim.


You're comparing Canon to Canon. Of course EOS R is a good value proposition compared to the 5DIV. In many ways it's the same camera for a thousand dollars less.

Comparing EOS R to the full frame mirrorless competition is where its value misses the mark. Drop the price to $1999? Not so bad any more. It is not a premium offering over its competition yet commands a price premium. Less or even the same for more money = poor value.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Fair enough. If you value ergonomics, rear tilty flippy screen and really simple menus over actual image quality and video performance, than I can understand the current appeal of Canon cameras I suppose.
> 
> For me the entire purpose of a camera is the output and I therefore value the highest quality sensor performance that I can get.



I, too, am disappointed in some of the EOS-R specs, but don't underestimate the importance of ergonomics and ease of use. Awkward, hard to use cameras will cause you to miss many many shots and videos that you would have otherwise captured with a well-designed camera. And some cameras can be so frustrating to use that you'll just stop picking them up before too long.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I, too, am disappointed in some of the EOS-R specs, but don't underestimate the importance of ergonomics and ease of use. Awkward, hard to use cameras will cause you to miss many many shots and videos that you would have otherwise captured with a well-designed camera. And some cameras can be so frustrating to use that you'll just stop picking them up before too long.


Agreed. I dont mean to dismiss ergonomics altogether... I'd obviously much rather have an intuitive and comfortable camera in my hands. But I won't prioritize that over sensor performance.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 24, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> And if you're truly that concerned about IQ you're shooting a 42/45/50mp sensor, or medium format digital.



...and even that has its own set of pros and cons. Pros are obvious, some cons: worse high ISO performance, increased difficulty of getting sharp images, greater demand on lenses.

In the right conditions (and with the right “technique”), a 5DSR type camera can be head and shoulders above the rest. But in a suboptimal environment, I’d rather have a crisp (if lesser detailed) smaller 30 or 24MP image than a blurry or fuzzy 50MP one


----------



## Etienne (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Agreed. I dont mean to dismiss ergonomics altogether... I'd obviously much rather have an intuitive and comfortable camera in my hands. But I won't prioritize that over sensor performance.


If you always have the time to set up shots, making sure that you get it right, like in still life photography or in a studio, then probably sensor performance is the top priority. But in a live action situation ... some cameras will leave you with far fewer useable shots. At the end of the day it's about going home with the shots.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> None of that is at all surprising. They used existing/old technology and therefore have all of the limitations of their current camera systems now present in their brand new mirrorless.
> 
> I know many people will defend anything Canon does, but there is no question that Canon offers much less for the money vs. their competitors. And with the EOS R, they have clearly committed to continuing this.
> 
> I've only ever used Canon. I like my Canon cameras. But I also like the benefits of new technology and forward thinking. I unfortunately have to take a loss on my glass collection as I transition to a competing brand. EOS R is not a bad camera, it's just not a great camera. And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/



No forward thinking at Canon? Really? These may not ALL be Canon inventions but:

air sphere coatings

fluorine coatings

blue spectrum refractive optics

UD glass, Super UD glass

sub-wavelength structure coating

an 11-24 mm zoom

A fish-eye zoom lens!!!

A 28-70 f2.0 for crying out loud!!!

What are you looking for? IBIS? Is that it? They put 5 stops of IS in lenses and that ain't enough? Sure they don't ALL do that, but for every omission of great ILIS they offer a version WITH. 

Sorry to un-load on you, nothing personal, but I read ad nauseam the mass perception that Canon is just sitting on their hands, raking in the cash with no regard for their customers. I use their cameras to make my living because there is NO ONE ELSE making what I need (excellent TS lenses) and backing their dependable-like-no-one-else's technology with the very best support. I shudder to think what I'd do if Canon abandoned rock-solid usable hardware to chase after every techno-feature the blog-o-sphere fancies this week.

Rant over. Apologies in advance.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

Etienne said:


> If you always have the time to set up shots, making sure that you get it right, like in still life photography or in a studio, then probably sensor performance is the top priority. But in a live action situation ... some cameras will leave you with far fewer useable shots. At the end of the day it's about going home with the shots.


What I'm after is more usable shots. I often have shots that I can't use because they look too grainy and dont have the ability for adjustment due to low dynamic range.

I haven't shot with the sony A7III, but I have worked with files from another photographer. Big difference. Shadow recovery while preserving detail in highlights was superior and iso6400 looked like iso 3200 on my canon files in terms of noise.

Perhaps the ergonomics of the sony would cause me to miss some shots that I otherwise would have captured on my canon and therefore negate the additional sensor performance. Somehow I doubt it though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> For me the entire purpose of a camera is the output and I therefore value the highest quality sensor performance that I can get.


So obviously you’re shooting medium format. MF seriously trumps FF, just as FF trumps APS-C. Since you value the highest quality sensor performance you can get, you _must_ be shooting medium format. If not, then either you should be...or perhaps your values aren’t exactly as you claim them to be.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> No forward thinking at Canon? Really? These may not ALL be Canon inventions but:
> 
> air sphere coatings
> 
> ...


No need to apologize.

I'm looking for higher dynamic range and better high iso performance, IBIS or IS in EVERY lens, 1080p 120fps, 4k with minimal crop.

The point I am making is that EOS R is up against cameras that do this stuff for less money.


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 24, 2018)

The good news is that the competition is not standing still, which means that Canon has to keep improving too. The new Leica/Panasonic/Sigma(and maybe Olympus) L-Mount system has the potential to be a game changer, with multiple camera companies all sharing a standard full frame+ mount. The 4/3 system definitely did benefit from multiple companies using the same system and the video side of the system has a potentially very aggressive panasonic behind it. 

It'll be interesting to see what the market looks like 5 years from now. If Leica really is coming up with a 'open' mount system that has a minimal license fee it could be a game changer.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> So obviously you’re shooting medium format. MF seriously trumps FF, just as FF trumps APS-C. Since you value the highest quality sensor performance you can get, you _must_ be shooting medium format. If not, then either you should be...or perhaps your values aren’t exactly as you claim them to be.


Edit: highest quality in FF. I'd rather not spend boatloads on Medium Format. Would be hard to make that a worthwhile investment.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> The good news is that the competition is not standing still, which means that Canon has to keep improving too. The new Leica/Panasonic/Sigma(and maybe Olympus) L-Mount system has the potential to be a game changer, with multiple camera companies all sharing a standard full frame+ mount. The 4/3 system definitely did benefit from multiple companies using the same system and the video side of the system has a potentially very aggressive panasonic behind it.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see what the market looks like 5 years from now. If Leica really is coming up with a 'open' mount system that has a minimal license fee it could be a game changer.


I agree here. Can't wait to see that new partnership and what it will bring to the market.

I had preordered an A7III after the EOS R announcement, but canceled it because I wanted to see the A7SIII which should be out in October. But there may be some more options out there now


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> In terms of sensor performance, I'm looking for more high iso performance and dynamic range. I do mostly low light and high iso stuff (concerts, events, etc.). I have worked with my canon raw files and also sony A7III raw files. Say what you want, but the Sony files are much better quality and offer much more workability in post for my purposes.



I'm not saying what I want like it's a personal preference. I'm reporting on available test data. RAW files shot under strict conditions to remove any other influence (i.e. exposure and lens variations). Those tests do not support the claim of higher IQ or "much more" workability, except of course for shadow push at base (not high) ISO. If your experience has been different I would look for variables like exposure.

Note that I am speaking of stills only. For low light video the A73 will do better for the simple fact that the 4k frame is produced from nearly the entire FF sensor while on Canon's 30mp sensor it's produced from a region approximately super 35 in size.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> No need to apologize.
> 
> I'm looking for higher dynamic range and better high iso performance, IBIS or IS in EVERY lens, 1080p 120fps, 4k with minimal crop.
> 
> The point I am making is that EOS R is up against cameras that do this stuff for less money.



I hear you and appreciate the need for better DR, but as to IS in 'every' lens—does anyone really ever need or purchase 'every' lens? I've got IS in all three of the lenses I need it in and don't ever expect to see it in my TS lenses, I just simply would never use it—I have other reasons for using a tripod that can't be addressed with ANY kind of IS, in-lens or otherwise. And I'm willing to pay for the level of dependability and support I get from Canon, can't expect that to come for free. Saving a few bucks is no savings at all when I have to wait two weeks for a repair, or if I have to own four copies of everything I use 'just in case'...


----------



## SaP34US (Sep 24, 2018)

Would you say that they been degsining ot for 4 or 5 years?
The limitation are partly down to that as well as not using other companies sendors.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Sep 24, 2018)

I know many people will defend anything Canon does, but there is no question that Canon offers much less for the money vs. their competitors. And with the EOS R, they have clearly committed to continuing this.

except for the lenses. these are "system cameras" a lot of us have bought into the system. Canon lenses are generally great quality and value, though Sigma and Tamron are making inroads. I think this may be a problem for Canon if they really are going to switch away from EF. If I have to buy a bunch of new lenses, I might buy a different body too.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> I hear you and appreciate the need for better DR, but as to IS in 'every' lens—does anyone really ever need or purchase 'every' lens? I've got IS in all three of the lenses I need it in and don't ever expect to see it in my TS lenses, I just simply would never use it—I have other reasons for using a tripod that can't be addressed with ANY kind of IS, in-lens or otherwise. And I'm willing to pay for the level of dependability and support I get from Canon, can't expect that to come for free. Saving a few bucks is no savings at all when I have to wait two weeks for a repair, or if I have to own four copies of everything I use 'just in case'...


If they gave me faster glass with IS I would be happy to forego the lack of IBIS. I need a 35mm f1.4 IS, 16-35 f2.8 IS, 24-70 f2.8 IS. 
For me, the IS is more for video work.

Speaking of video, one of the most difficult things to accept with the EOS R is the lack of 1080p 120fps. Give this thing 1080p 120 fps and release a bunch of IS glass and I think it would be a real competitor when you consider Canon's ergonomics and colors. Lower DR and ISO performance would be easier to accept if those other features were there.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

peterzuehlke said:


> I know many people will defend anything Canon does, but there is no question that Canon offers much less for the money vs. their competitors. And with the EOS R, they have clearly committed to continuing this.
> 
> except for the lenses. these are "system cameras" a lot of us have bought into the system. Canon lenses are generally great quality and value, though Sigma and Tamron are making inroads. I think this may be a problem for Canon if they really are going to switch away from EF. If I have to buy a bunch of new lenses, I might buy a different body too.


As much as I like to praise the competitions bodies, I can't say the same for glass. I love my Canon L glass. I think Canon makes the best lenses on the market. But given the lack of IBIS with EOS R, if I have to start buying a bunch of new RF lenses to get IS (assuming Canon will offer these lenses), then I might as well consider other bodies that have better features.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> None of that is at all surprising. They used existing/old technology and therefore have all of the limitations of their current camera systems now present in their brand new mirrorless.
> 
> I know many people will defend anything Canon does, but there is no question that Canon offers much less for the money vs. their competitors. And with the EOS R, they have clearly committed to continuing this.
> 
> I've only ever used Canon. I like my Canon cameras. But I also like the benefits of new technology and forward thinking. I unfortunately have to take a loss on my glass collection as I transition to a competing brand. EOS R is not a bad camera, it's just not a great camera. And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/



I agree with this but will add that Canon does have innovative technology in the EOS-R- DPAF, functional adapters that add value instead of just getting in the way, multi-functional control ring- it's just not the innovative technology that many of us want. It's funny to me that Canon can engineer such ergonomic quality and innovations, yet they do not have the sensory or processor technology to implement 4K video with less than a 1.7x crop.

I'll be keeping my Canon glass to use adapted to other systems such as RED, Sony, Fuji, but will wait until Canon releases the next generation of sensors and image processors to jump into this system. It's unfortunate, because I miss the usability and dependability of Canon bodies.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 24, 2018)

The biggest problem have is that Sony have a 4 year lead on Canon in terms of sensor technology and quality. The A7RII has a 42 megapixel BSI CMOS sensor with IBIS and incredibly good sensitivity. It too Canon two years to get sensors anywhere close in terms of sensitivity, and they still don't have a high resolution sensor of that capability. 

The biggest advantage that Canon have is that they have almost everything else right, including what is probably the best lineup of lenses when you compare quality with price. 

Canon really do have to catch up in the sensor department, but a sensor isn't the only thing that makes a great camera. I look forward to see how the R series develops.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 24, 2018)

Thanks, CR, for posting the interview. Short and sweet, but discusses the hot topics with apparent honesty.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 24, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> It's funny to me that Canon can engineer such ergonomic quality and innovations, yet they do not have the sensory or processor technology to implement 4K video with less than a 1.7x crop.



I'm on the opposite side. It seems funny to me that Sony can engineer the sensor which is the difficult bit, yet makes such a poor rendition of ergonomics considering its history in consume electronics, including phones !
Sensors are covered by patents, ergonomics are (largely) not. And that is the problem, the spoils go to the company who get the first patents and it may well be that Canon are having to work round that - and anyone who has any experience in product development knows that getting that first key step is a huge amount of luck. So to me it is not at all surprising that Sony has it but Canon do not. What I find amusing is those who say Canon 'should' have it for no other reason than they are the biggest company, or claim they have the technology but do not use it because they do not want to cannibalise their multi-thousand buck video system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> > No forward thinking at Canon? Really?
> 
> 
> I'm looking for higher dynamic range and better high iso performance, IBIS or IS in EVERY lens, 1080p 120fps, 4k with minimal crop.



*in·no·va·tion* ˌinəˈvāSH(ə)n/ _noun_
1. things that I personally want

Said no dictionary...ever.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 24, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> No forward thinking at Canon? Really? These may not ALL be Canon inventions but:
> 
> air sphere coatings
> 
> ...


You missed one item of forward thinking on Canon's part, the Speedlite 470EX-AI. The first ever external flash with a powered head. I own one and it works beautifully.


----------



## gmon750 (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> None of that is at all surprising. They used existing/old technology and therefore have all of the limitations of their current camera systems now present in their brand new mirrorless.
> 
> I know many people will defend anything Canon does, but there is no question that Canon offers much less for the money vs. their competitors. And with the EOS R, they have clearly committed to continuing this.
> 
> I've only ever used Canon. I like my Canon cameras. But I also like the benefits of new technology and forward thinking. I unfortunately have to take a loss on my glass collection as I transition to a competing brand. EOS R is not a bad camera, it's just not a great camera. And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/



Yeah... because your current Canon camera is suddenly useless and no longer able to take great shots. Of course it’s the camera, and not the photographer.

Whatever. I’m invested in Canon as well and will happily continue using mine until a proper Mirrorless version arrives. I don’t understand the rush with people like you.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> *in·no·va·tion* ˌinəˈvāSH(ə)n/ _noun_
> 1. things that I personally want
> 
> Said no dictionary...ever.


Yes, they are innovative features that I happen to want/need.

Defend Canon all you want. They are behind the competition in many aspects regarding modern mirrorless features and performance. It's quite clear at this point.


----------



## sebasan (Sep 24, 2018)

Stop feeding the trolls...


----------



## Dantana (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> If they gave me faster glass with IS I would be happy to forego the lack of IBIS. I need a 35mm f1.4 IS, 16-35 f2.8 IS, 24-70 f2.8 IS.
> For me, the IS is more for video work.
> 
> Speaking of video, one of the most difficult things to accept with the EOS R is the lack of 1080p 120fps. Give this thing 1080p 120 fps and release a bunch of IS glass and I think it would be a real competitor when you consider Canon's ergonomics and colors. Lower DR and ISO performance would be easier to accept if those other features were there.



I'm curious what it is that you're shooting that these are your requirements.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Speaking of video, one of the most difficult things to accept with the EOS R is the lack of 1080p 120fps. Give this thing 1080p 120 fps and release a bunch of IS glass and I think it would be a real competitor when you consider Canon's ergonomics and colors. Lower DR and ISO performance would be easier to accept if those other features were there.


1080p 120fps may come with a firmware update sometime in the future.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> As much as I like to praise the competitions bodies, I can't say the same for glass. I love my Canon L glass. I think Canon makes the best lenses on the market. But given the lack of IBIS with EOS R, if I have to start buying a bunch of new RF lenses to get IS (assuming Canon will offer these lenses), then I might as well consider other bodies that have better features.


Remember this is Canon's first foray into FF Mirrorless, give them a chance.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

Roy Hunte said:


> 1080p 120fps may come with a firmware update sometime in the future.


That would be interesting. Hopefully they are able to do that.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> That would be interesting. Hopefully they are able to do that.


They say the first firmware update is coming November, apparently opening up silent shot and continuous AF in Burst Mode and 'some tweaks to video' will have to see what those 'tweaks' are.
BTW I have preordered one to replace my highly inadequate Rebel T6/1300D so whatever it is will be an upgrade for me.


----------



## Buck (Sep 24, 2018)

I think this is consistent with Canon, introduce some new technology but include old technology to keep it reliable. Had they come out with a new camera with a bunch of totally new, unproven technology and it failed in the field they didn't want the pr hit. Put a new body and mount into the market, prove that the results are good, maybe even better and the camera is reliable, continue to work on new technology to move the new platform forward.
Take for example the overheating issues, the actual users who experienced overheating woud be all over Canon for releasing a camera with a known design flaw.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Yes, they are innovative features that I happen to want/need.
> 
> Defend Canon all you want. They are behind the competition in many aspects regarding modern mirrorless features and performance. It's quite clear at this point.



And Sony are behind in others regards taking pictures - you say it is the output that mattes, well Canon gear will get you images that the Sony has a reduced chance of getting and in that respect, Sony is behind the competition in many aspects. The question is what are your preferred balance of attributes?

And who is defending Canon?


----------



## jhpeterson (Sep 24, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Much less? That depends on your perspective. Sony being unable or unwilling to weather seal their bodies is Sony offering "much less for the money" in my book. You date a body but marry a lens collection. Since I can't trust Sony weather sealing claims on their bodies why should I trust them when it comes to their lenses? Is that a long term investment I would ever want to make?


Weather sealing, or rather the lack of it, is a dealbreaker for me. Until a manufacturer comes up with something better than the 1D series bodies I'm using, I'll be content with my outdated sensors. 
It doesn't matter how many pixels or stops of dynamic range the camera delivers if it stops working in the middle of a shoot. What counts for me is the images I can show the client.


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 24, 2018)

Roy Hunte said:


> 1080p 120fps may come with a firmware update sometime in the future.



Highly unlikely given what is the most likely cause of that limitation (sensor readout speed).


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I think it's just a matter of curiosity. But I Agree. Canon is likely going to be behind for quite some time. If we want/need modern features and performance, we have to face the fact that we must move on.



I think part of Canon's "issues" with this whole mirrorless 'phenomenon' is that they treated it more like a novelty - something that only the younger, and new'ish' to photography, generation was interested in and that their other, smaller offerings would keep happy/meet-their-needs (hence the "M" series, and then the G7... and M50, M10, M100, and so forth). 

Then, they began to wake up a little bit when Sony really went all-in on FF mirrorless and a little more when Sony went bonkers on fleshing out a comparable lens line-up to fill Pro needs - enough so that sales started to move and swing to Sony. And Sony didn't care (or seem to) about cannibalizing new/current model sales to introduce new bodies/products. Canon (and Nikon) has (had) one philosophy/approach and Sony has another approach. What will be super-interesting is what will happen to this FF mirrorless space when the RUMORED new Panasonic FF is announced and then released. I don't think that anyone who knows anything about 4K /Video in SLR type bodies would say that Sony is better than Panasonic when it comes to 4K/video know-how in a small yet competent form-factor.

As Canon users, many of us are hoping madly that Canon awoke in time to divvy up the proper amount of funding for further sensor development. And why they haven't figured out a way to offer more body options w/o the low-pass filter. I personally think it has something to do with a CMOS vs. Backlit sensor (like Sony, Panny, and Fuji have been using variants of... But I'm not very technically savvy in this area.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 24, 2018)

Buck said:


> I think this is consistent with Canon, introduce some new technology but include old technology to keep it reliable. Had they come out with a new camera with a bunch of totally new, unproven technology and it failed in the field they didn't want the pr hit. Put a new body and mount into the market, prove that the results are good, maybe even better and the camera is reliable, continue to work on new technology to move the new platform forward.
> Take for example the overheating issues, the actual users who experienced overheating woud be all over Canon for releasing a camera with a known design flaw.


Exactly, professionally cautious describes Canon.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> No need to apologize.
> 
> I'm looking for higher dynamic range and better high iso performance, IBIS or IS in EVERY lens, 1080p 120fps, 4k with minimal crop.
> 
> The point I am making is that EOS R is up against cameras *that do this stuff for less money*.



Here is the flaw you in your point. Camera bodies alone do not take pictures.

You can set the camera spec sheets side by side and compare what one has the other doesn't.
You have only made the comparison of the body.
For me those differences you named are inconsequential as each can be easily countered with skill and effort.

Without comparing the lens with components that you need to do what you want you only have a small slice of the picture. Whether the system is cheaper overall matters, not the few hundred dollars additional a body will cost you. 
You then have to compare what the system as a whole does for you.
I know everyone has different needs and budgets, but for me that few hundred dollars difference is less than 1% of my outlay for gear.

Questions to answer. 
What will I save in gear cost if I switch?
Will it cost me more?
What IQ can I expect with this other camera if I have to use different lenses?


----------



## kkamena (Sep 24, 2018)

I cannot believe it is 2018 and Sony has not put out a DPAF camera yet. If their next camera does not have this then they are ******* and every one will switch back to canon.

Sony is 5 years behind Canon when it comes to sensor technology, Canon has had this since 2013.

Sony is such a ripoff trying to sell its a9 for over $4k without DPAF when canon has it in its rebel line for less than $800. It 2018 every camera should have this by now.

All real photographers know that autofocus is the only important thing, so if Sony cannot catchup to Canon in the very next release I am switching brands.
Don’t get me wrong, I have been shooting Sony for like 3 months and am sooooo loyal, but you know they are just behind.

Ps. I can not belive Sony crippeled its camera with less than 500 AF points.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> And Sony are behind in others regards taking pictures - you say it is the output that mattes, well Canon gear will get you images that the Sony has a reduced chance of getting and in that respect, Sony is behind the competition in many aspects. The question is what are your preferred balance of attributes?
> 
> And who is defending Canon?


You are defending canon along with others that bring up that same Sony argument over and over. I never once said Sony is a perfect camera. It too has issues. In fact my original post had nothing to do with Sony whatsoever. I have been pointing out the fact that Canon's sensor tech and feature set of the EOS R FF mirrorless is generally behind the competition. Are the ergonomics better on Canon? Yep. Are the colors better? Yep. Is the sensor and video performance better? Nope.

The sensor and video performance lack compared to the competition. It's a fact. Not an unjust attack on Canon and not a promotion for Sony or any other manufacturer.


----------



## Talys (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Yes, they are innovative features that I happen to want/need.
> 
> Defend Canon all you want. They are behind the competition in many aspects regarding modern mirrorless features and performance. It's quite clear at this point.



It's fair for you to want those features, but at this point, they're just features. There's nothing innovative about adding a feature that someone else already put into their device. Like, if Apple released a smartphone with curved edges, or Samsung added a notch, or one of them added another camera with a different FL, none of that would be innovative, even though you might want it.

It's much more accurate to say that going into 2019, each camera manufacturer's offerings has distinct differentiators and a feature mix that the others don't. Mirrorless full frame cameras aren't same-y... yet... because the market is youthful. So, buy the one you want for today, or just wait a few years, and like DSLRs have become, they'll all be very similar (and you'll be able to get more for less money). Or don't.

Either way, it's only innovation if it's some _new_ idea.



ecpu said:


> You are defending canon along with others that bring up that same Sony argument over and over. I never once said Sony is a perfect camera. It too has issues. In fact my original post had nothing to do with Sony whatsoever. I have been pointing out the fact that Canon's sensor tech and feature set of the EOS R FF mirrorless is generally behind the competition. Are the ergonomics better on Canon? Yep. Are the colors better? Yep. Is the sensor and video performance better? Nope.
> 
> The sensor and video performance lack compared to the competition. It's a fact. Not an unjust attack on Canon and not a promotion for Sony or any other manufacturer.



The 5D4 has a fine sensor, and if someone can't generate award-winning, amazing photographs from it, the problem is behind the viewfinder. Are Sony or Nikon sensors better? In some ways, yes, yet in other ways, it is clearly inferior. But we are at the point where flagship sensors are so good that for most photographers, professional or otherwise, they're all great sensors, and certainly good enough.

I can't speak to video, as I would much rather use a camcorder or smartphone to record video than any camera.


----------



## ecpu (Sep 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> It's fair for you to want those features, but at this point, they're just features. There's nothing innovative about adding a feature that someone else already put into their device. Like, if Apple released a smartphone with curved edges, or Samsung added a notch, or one of them added another camera with a different FL, none of that would be innovative, even though you might want it.
> 
> It's much more accurate to say that going into 2019, each camera manufacturer's offerings has distinct differentiators and a feature mix that the others don't. Mirrorless full frame cameras aren't same-y... yet... because the market is youthful. So, buy the one you want for today, or just wait a few years, and like DSLRs have become, they'll all be very similar (and you'll be able to get more for less money). Or don't.
> 
> ...


Agreed. The 5D4 takes nice photos. Again, I'm not disputing that at all.

As for the hybrid vs dedicated video camera discussion: it's super convenient and cost effective to use a hybrid system if the features that you need are there. Unfortunately for me, Canon does not currently offer these features on EOS R, but its direct competitors do.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 24, 2018)

Ugh... Canon should really try to upgrade that silicon technology. It's understandable the EOS R is only capable of 4k @1.7 times crop when their brand new full-frame cinema camera (the C700 FF) is topping out at 30FPS for full-frame 4k readout. And that's with _triple_ DIGIC DV 5 processors... I'm not sure if it's the silicon, the DIGIC processor architecture, or a combination of both, but it needs some work.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 24, 2018)

Appreciate Canon's candor here. The first step to sloving a problem is admitting that you have one. This is a far cry from the "what DR gap?" Canon of a few years ago. Unlike DR, which was kind of a wonky subject and didn't really have that much impact for many users, read speeds and processing are core functions of a mirrorless camera and if they lag behind the competitors it's going to be pretty obvious. If you look at the progress that FujiFilm has made in just a few years with their X series I don't see any reason why Canon shouldn't be able to make some significant gains if they put the appropriate resources into their chip tech.


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 24, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Why is is 'unsatisfactory'? Equally valid questions are:
> Why can't Sony make a decent touch screen interface?
> Why can't Sony make a decent waterproofed camera
> Why have Sony put an inferior LCD and EVF in the A73?
> ...




Why are forum users obsessed with Sony? It''s an interview with Canon execs.


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 24, 2018)

amorse said:


> Sony is able to prioritize sensor performance because they manufacture sensors for many many applications, from their own cameras to cell phone cameras to vehicle backup cameras to other applications still. With sensor technology impacting so many parts of Sony's business, it makes sense for them to pump resources into that.



So does Canon, Sony is just better at it at the moment.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 24, 2018)

Cthulhu said:


> Why are forum users obsessed with Sony? It''s an interview with Canon execs.



Just because:

_"The grass is always greener on the other side"_

_or_

_"Always chasing Rainbows"_


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 24, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I, too, am disappointed in some of the EOS-R specs, but don't underestimate the importance of ergonomics and ease of use. Awkward, hard to use cameras will cause you to miss many many shots and videos that you would have otherwise captured with a well-designed camera. And some cameras can be so frustrating to use that you'll just stop picking them up before too long.




That's the one reason why I'm not buying this camera: ergonomics. That touchscreen is nice but my eos M5 is practically useless for situations with moving subjects unless you're one of those who only use the center point. If it had a joystick I'd have pre ordered at first chance, even though it's a slow poke body.


----------



## gmrza (Sep 24, 2018)

What I would like to understand better is how the introduction of the RF mount affects the future of the EF-M mount. My understanding is that electrically EF-M is basically the same as EF. That means EF-M can't enjoy many of the features that RF can. Will Canon still develop the EOS-M series, or is it dead?


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 24, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Just because:
> 
> _"The grass is always greener on the other side"_
> 
> ...




Maybe. It just feels like a race to the bottom when that's the response to why Canon omitted IBIS (that ALL other manufacturers have).


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 24, 2018)

You know, it is too bad most of those complaining don't post photos of their work to explain how any particular camera is inferior or holding them back. There are photographers and there are tech collectors at this level. Just like there are Porsche owners and Porsche race drivers. I used to go to mountain bike races right next to the Laguna Seca raceway in California. When races weren't being held people could rent track time for their daily driver sports cars. For people like that, maybe some new tech by the competition would make a difference. For the well to do middle aged guy that never gets beyond the freeway with his Carrera? Nah. He'll never use that car to it's potential. He can &itch all day long on forums, but it wouldn't make any difference at all.

I'm no great shakes as a photographer (though I am improving all the time), but there is not a got dang thing that a camera company can offer that's going to make me better. I have good gear, great gear for a poor boy that pros use every day of the week to make a good living. But the only thing that will make me any better is track time and serious practice and attention to detail. That's it. Talent is natural to some. For the rest of us it takes hard work.

So the question will always be: "Are you good enough for the camera that an upgrade makes any sense at all?" Or are you just the middle age freeway racer that wants to show off to the neighbors? Or is your self esteem dependent upon material trophies you don't know how to use?


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 24, 2018)

Cthulhu said:


> Maybe. It just feels like a race to the bottom when that's the response to why Canon omitted IBIS (that ALL other manufacturers have).



I thought in this interview the they did a bad job for representing Canon.
I thought there was another interview earlier that did a better job with this.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 24, 2018)

Cthulhu said:


> Maybe. It just feels like a race to the bottom when that's the response to why Canon omitted IBIS (that ALL other manufacturers have).


I wasn't aware that Pentax, Hasselblad, Leica, or Sigma had IBIS. Thanks!


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 24, 2018)

Cthulhu said:


> Why are forum users obsessed with Sony? It''s an interview with Canon execs.


I suggest you re-read my post to understand the context.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 24, 2018)

gmrza said:


> What I would like to understand better is how the introduction of the RF mount affects the future of the EF-M mount. My understanding is that electrically EF-M is basically the same as EF. That means EF-M can't enjoy many of the features that RF can. Will Canon still develop the EOS-M series, or is it dead?



I guess it all depends on if people keep on buying it. And time and again with technology there are some real curveballs between what looks like the best and what sells the best.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 24, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You know, it is too bad most of those complaining don't post photos of their work to explain how any particular camera is inferior or holding them back. There are photographers and there are tech collectors at this level. Just like there are Porsche owners and Porsche race drivers. I used to go to mountain bike races right next to the Laguna Seca raceway in California. When races weren't being held people could rent track time for their daily driver sports cars. For people like that, maybe some new tech by the competition would make a difference. For the well to do middle aged guy that never gets beyond the freeway with his Carrera? Nah. He'll never use that car to it's potential. He can &itch all day long on forums, but it wouldn't make any difference at all.
> 
> I'm no great shakes as a photographer (though I am improving all the time), but there is not a got dang thing that a camera company can offer that's going to make me better. I have good gear, great gear for a poor boy that pros use every day of the week to make a good living. But the only thing that will make me any better is track time and serious practice and attention to detail. That's it. Talent is natural to some. For the rest of us it takes hard work.
> 
> So the question will always be: "Are you good enough for the camera that an upgrade makes any sense at all?" Or are you just the middle age freeway racer that wants to show off to the neighbors? Or is your self esteem dependent upon material trophies you don't know how to use?



Honestly, the answer for my gear is none of the above. I want the best gear I can get, so when I fail the fault is squarely on my skill level not my equipment.
The learning experience still comes through failure. 

The truth is there are many out there with older cheaper equipment, producing outstanding work far better than I am able to.


----------



## tmroper (Sep 24, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Fair enough. If you value ergonomics, rear tilty flippy screen and really simple menus over actual image quality and video performance, than I can understand the current appeal of Canon cameras I suppose.
> 
> For me the entire purpose of a camera is the output and I therefore value the highest quality sensor performance that I can get.


It's actually a very valid point that not everyone puts image quality at the top of the list. Some just want and need good enough, and put their efforts and money into other aspects that make-up a good photo. To each his or her own, but you don't have to be a practitioner of motion-blur, intentionally out of focus shots, etc, to at least understand what Henri Cartier-Bresson meant when he said "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 24, 2018)

Can anyone tell me where I can get the very best computer for Lightroom and Photoshop? I want the very best I can get. If I only had the very best video card and the very mostest ram, and the very fastest processor I could get great images. I want something that isn't going to be eclipsed by something else in the next year or two. My current computer is holding me back. My customers demand to know that I have the very latest in technology. If my computer is 3 years old, then I just lost a customer. Oh! And I want it for the price of a tablet. Stupid Toshiba.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 24, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Can anyone tell me where I can get the very best computer for Lightroom and Photoshop? I want the very best I can get. If I only had the very best video card and the very mostest ram, and the very fastest processor I could get great images. I want something that isn't going to be eclipsed by something else in the next year or two. My current computer is holding me back. My customers demand to know that I have the very latest in technology. If my computer is 3 years old, then I just lost a customer. Oh! And I want it for the price of a tablet. Stupid Toshiba.



https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/summit/

You'll have to negotiate the price...


----------



## HarryFilm (Sep 24, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> Ugh... Canon should really try to upgrade that silicon technology. It's understandable the EOS R is only capable of 4k @1.7 times crop when their brand new full-frame cinema camera (the C700 FF) is topping out at 30FPS for full-frame 4k readout. And that's with _triple_ DIGIC DV 5 processors... I'm not sure if it's the silicon, the DIGIC processor architecture, or a combination of both, but it needs some work.



---

It's actually 60 fps for full frame readout on the C700 FF -- I use them A LOT !!! I've taken the C700 FF's to sports, action and wildlife shoots and the 18 megapixel frame grabs I've gotten once I've done Black Magic Resolve colour grading on them IS ASTOUNDING! They've been printed at 2400 dpi glossy photos AND canvas using error-diffusion pixel resampling and the resulting quality on glossy photo or canvas on Epson professional printers at up to 19 inches by 13 inches is no problem whatsoever for this camera. I can even do 600 DPI 72 inch by 48 inch poster prints of the Canon C700 FF 18 megapixel frame grabs if you use a decent Fractal or Lanczos-5 image resizer program.

In fact, I heartily recommend the Canon C700 FF ...AND... the 8K Red Helium/Monstro cameras for professional stills photography. You can grab frames you could NEVER GET with any other type of camera! Only an Arri Alexa-65 beats these two in terms of colour rendition and image quality but that one is RENTAL ONLY!

Yeah they are $50,000+ when fully kitted out BUT when you've had old SDTV 720x480 pixel and 1080p Shoulder-mount Camcorders that used to cost $55,000+ , then such a quality jump isn't all that bad for the price!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 24, 2018)

brad-man said:


> https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/summit/
> 
> You'll have to negotiate the price...


Cool! Does it have an NVIDIA video card? Everyone knows NVIDIA is years ahead of the competition.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 24, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> ---
> 
> It's actually 60 fps for full frame readout on the C700 FF -- I use them A LOT !!! I've taken the C700 FF's to sports, action and wildlife shoots and the 18 megapixel frame grabs I've gotten once I've done Black Magic Resolve colour grading on them IS ASTOUNDING! They've been printed at 2400 dpi glossy photos AND canvas using error-diffusion pixel resampling and the resulting quality on glossy photo or canvas on Epson professional printers at up to 19 inches by 13 inches is no problem whatsoever for this camera. I can even do 600 DPI 72 inch by 48 inch poster prints of the Canon C700 FF 18 megapixel frame grabs if you use a decent Fractal or Lanczos-5 image resizer program.
> 
> ...



Nope. Until it has IBIS it is a piece of... manure. Everyone knows IBIS is the gold standard for video. WTH! Now get back on the banjo, grandpa! Why would I ever get a C700FF when I could get better with the Sony A7r III? There goes Canon. Protecting the 5D IV by pricing the C700 FF out of range. SMH. There is absolutely no reason the C700 FF should, in 2018, cost more than $999 and not be the size of an M50. Smaller and lighter. Sony. I've had it with Canon protecting the 5D IV. I'm jumping ship.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 24, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Cool! Does it have an NVIDIA video card? Everyone knows NVIDIA is years ahead of the competition.


Even better. It has Digic 8 to handle video. It has a gazillion of 'em..


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Can anyone tell me where I can get the very best computer for Lightroom and Photoshop? I want the very best I can get. If I only had the very best video card and the very mostest ram, and the very fastest processor I could get great images. I want something that isn't going to be eclipsed by something else in the next year or two. My current computer is holding me back. My customers demand to know that I have the very latest in technology. If my computer is 3 years old, then I just lost a customer. Oh! And I want it for the price of a tablet. Stupid Toshiba.



I bought an ASUS ROG a few years ago. Super fast. I can now sort through the bad pictures even faster and see my mistakes quicker.
It increased my skill level by 0 but I process much faster now.

The other positive if your, clients are gamer's you can always shift the conversation to the latest MMOG and you can look professional. If they do not game just buy one of those fruit computers and tell them how great it is.


----------



## syder (Sep 25, 2018)

ecpu said:


> You're comparing Canon to Canon. Of course EOS R is a good value proposition compared to the 5DIV. In many ways it's the same camera for a thousand dollars less.
> 
> Comparing EOS R to the full frame mirrorless competition is where its value misses the mark. Drop the price to $1999? Not so bad any more. It is not a premium offering over its competition yet commands a price premium. Less or even the same for more money = poor value.



Errr... Sony 70-200 is $500 more than the Canon mkiii and $800 more than the mkii. So you more than make your money back between the A73 and the R on that one staple lens. And then keep saving money with each additional lens you buy. 

And there are the TS/Es, MPE65, 600mm, etc that dont exist in Sony mount. Or the new RF F2 zoom and 50mm f1.2. But obviously those things can't possibly count as innovative as they aren't exactly what you happen to want

I mean that's assuming that you buy lenses to use with your camera body. Many of us do. Perhaps you dont. I'm not even going to start on things like a flash system (which help many of us in poor light).

BTW... I really love that all of this is based on you saying that you haven't actually used a camera but have seen files from one. If there's a scientifically valid test for sensor performance, that has to be it. Right?


----------



## Adelino (Sep 25, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Fair enough. If you value ergonomics, rear tilty flippy screen and really simple menus over actual image quality and video performance, than I can understand the current appeal of Canon cameras I suppose.
> 
> For me the entire purpose of a camera is the output and I therefore value the highest quality sensor performance that I can get.



The thing is, the image quality and output on ANY curret FF is stellar for just about any need, any print size, any marketing campaign any social media, any art display and more. Getting those images in poor weather, awkward angles, dark conditions, quickly transitioning situations all these require EXACTLY what you agree Canon provides. For pixel peeping at underexposed brick walls then enjoy your marginally class leading image quality.


----------



## syder (Sep 25, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > I bought an ASUS ROG a few years ago. Super fast. I can now sort through the bad pictures even faster and see my mistakes quicker.
> ...



Nah. If you haven't bought an HP Z8 workstation with 2x 28 core Xeon processors, 1TB of RAM and 3x Quadro GP100 graphics cards you're basically a total noob who wont even be able to open Lightroom, let alone use Photoshop. I mean, if you don't have the best computer you clearly aren't a professional right?


----------



## stochasticmotions (Sep 25, 2018)

Interesting, what I took from this interview is that Canon is aware of the competition, is working on many technologies and at this point they have put out a camera with the technology that they are comfortable putting in a camera now. 

Personally I would have been much happier if they had put a 50+ MPixel sensor in the current EOS R since it kind of matches the capabilities of the 5DSR in most other ways and had waited to put out a 30ish MP sensor in a camera that would have 10 or so frames per second with autofocus tracking on each shot (and no screen blackout). 

I'm sure Canon will come out with an R mount camera that I will buy relatively soon, but I'm also pretty sure that sony will put out something at a better price point with some of the capabilities of the A9 (especially stacked sensor and better silent shooting) that I will very likely also get and still neither will be a perfect camera.....but I will have a blast with both of them.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 25, 2018)

stochasticmotions said:


> Interesting, what I took from this interview is that Canon is aware of the competition, is working on many technologies and at this point they have put out a camera with the technology that they are comfortable putting in a camera now.
> 
> Personally I would have been much happier if they had put a 50+ MPixel sensor in the current EOS R since it kind of matches the capabilities of the 5DSR in most other ways and had waited to put out a 30ish MP sensor in a camera that would have 10 or so frames per second with autofocus tracking on each shot (and no screen blackout).
> 
> I'm sure Canon will come out with an R mount camera that I will buy relatively soon, but I'm also pretty sure that sony will put out something at a better price point with some of the capabilities of the A9 (especially stacked sensor and better silent shooting) that I will very likely also get and still neither will be a perfect camera.....but I will have a blast with both of them.



IMO, the above is the most astute observation about the new information we get from this interview. I'll add just 2 points:

1) They admit that the sensor architecture is a limiting factor (thus frame rate and crop limitations). That is not a surprise, as we've surmised that from our discussions here. That they admit it is probably a good thing, as it means they're not ignoring it. 
2) They don't have the capacity to do decent IBIS, but may wish to. This is NOT as expected, as we've been thinking previously that they just wanted to do lens stabilization instead as a design choice.


----------



## Shakey (Sep 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nope. Until it has IBIS it is a piece of... manure. Everyone knows IBIS is the gold standard for video. WTH! Now get back on the banjo, grandpa! Why would I ever get a C700FF when I could get better with the Sony A7r III? There goes Canon. Protecting the 5D IV by pricing the C700 FF out of range. SMH. There is absolutely no reason the C700 FF should, in 2018, cost more than $999 and not be the size of an M50. Smaller and lighter. Sony. I've had it with Canon protecting the 5D IV. I'm jumping ship.


----------



## Shakey (Sep 25, 2018)

Goodbye and good luck


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I'm on the opposite side. It seems funny to me that Sony can engineer the sensor which is the difficult bit, yet makes such a poor rendition of ergonomics considering its history in consume electronics, including phones !
> Sensors are covered by patents, ergonomics are (largely) not. And that is the problem, the spoils go to the company who get the first patents and it may well be that Canon are having to work round that - and anyone who has any experience in product development knows that getting that first key step is a huge amount of luck. So to me it is not at all surprising that Sony has it but Canon do not. What I find amusing is those who say Canon 'should' have it for no other reason than they are the biggest company, or claim they have the technology but do not use it because they do not want to cannibalise their multi-thousand buck video system.



Well, I think this interview clarifies the point that we've been debating for quite some time- the fact is, it seems they really _do not_ have the technology to avoid a 1.7x crop in 4K on this newest sensor (either that or they are flagrantly lying, which I doubt). 

Since Canon is the largest and most preeminent camera company in the world with the largest marketshare, it's fair to say that at the very least, this is surprising- they really _should_ have the technology if any company does, but perhaps the patents that Sony holds on sensor design do not allow them to to have it. 

Sony also possesses an economy of scale with sensor production that rivals (and probably exceeds Canon's, although I am unfamiliar with the stats so am guessing) even though their camera marketshare is vastly smaller.

It's also fair to say that Canon has historically been reluctant to risk cannibalizing their other product lines and have avoided this by hobbling video features, so you also really can't blame people for suspecting Canon of doing it deliberately this time.


----------



## dsut4392 (Sep 25, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> What are you looking for? IBIS? Is that it? They put 5 stops of IS in lenses and that ain't enough? Sure they don't ALL do that, but for every omission of great ILIS they offer a version WITH.
> 
> Sorry to un-load on you, nothing personal, but I read ad nauseam the mass perception that Canon is just sitting on their hands, raking in the cash with no regard for their customers. I use their cameras to make my living because there is NO ONE ELSE making what I need (excellent TS lenses) and backing their dependable-like-no-one-else's technology with the very best support. I shudder to think what I'd do if Canon abandoned rock-solid usable hardware to chase after every techno-feature the blog-o-sphere fancies this week.
> 
> Rant over. Apologies in advance.



Remind me, what are the equivalents to the new f1.2 and f2.0 RF lenses that have 5 stops of IS? I'm not a spec chasing fanboy (I'm still shooting an original 6D which suits my needs), but dismissing IBIS as a 'techno feature fancied by the blogosphere' is absurd. FACT - All else being equal, the RF would be a better camera if it had IBIS. We don't know whether Canon was unable to implement IBIS successfully at all, or couldn't do so while keeping 'all else equal', or simply couldn't do it at the desired price point, but whatever the reason may be the camera doesn't have it, and it's something that would be useful to many people at least some of the time.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 25, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Yes, they are innovative features that I happen to want/need.
> 
> Defend Canon all you want. They are behind the competition in many aspects regarding modern mirrorless features and performance. It's quite clear at this point.


----------



## Cochese (Sep 25, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Fair enough. If you value ergonomics, rear tilty flippy screen and really simple menus over actual image quality and video performance, than I can understand the current appeal of Canon cameras I suppose.
> 
> For me the entire purpose of a camera is the output and I therefore value the highest quality sensor performance that I can get.




For me, the entire purpose of a camera is to capture the image I see in front of me and transform it into pixels on my screen prior to being a print in my hand. If you are having a problem executing any of these things with any camera in Canon's current line up, you're probably either a shit photographer or you have a broken camera. 
Realize that many working professionals don't even use the latest gear. Upgrading is usually done when the old camera dies or there are new quality of life features that make things easier and faster. 

For that matter, glass is just as important if not, more important in some instances, than the sensor behind it. Again, most pros don't upgrade until there is a massive difference in performance.


----------



## syder (Sep 25, 2018)

Cochese said:


> For me, the entire purpose of a camera is to capture the image I see in front of me and transform it into pixels on my screen prior to being a print in my hand. If you are having a problem executing any of these things with any camera in Canon's current line up, you're probably either a shit photographer or you have a broken camera.
> Realize that many working professionals don't even use the latest gear. Upgrading is usually done when the old camera dies or there are new quality of life features that make things easier and faster.
> 
> For that matter, glass is just as important if not, more important in some instances, than the sensor behind it. Again, most pros don't upgrade until there is a massive difference in performance.



Spot on... Its a shame that there seem to be so many spoiled children whinging about things here. 

Try making videos with a SD minidv camera with 5 stops of DR, taking pictures on a 8mp dslr or editing video on a twenty year old computer... We did, and still managed to produce compelling content. The tools we have today are amazing, the problem is almost always the ape using them.Or in this case not using them, but complaining about them.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 25, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Since Canon is the largest and most preeminent camera company in the world with the largest marketshare, it's fair to say that at the very least, this is surprising- they really _should_ have the technology if any company does, but perhaps the patents that Sony holds on sensor design do not allow them to to have it.



Canon may lead in camera marketshare, but Sony totally dominates the sensor game. Current estimates say they now command about 50% of the market. A recent article posted here demonstrated that Sony's huge advantage comes from their domination of the smartphone sensor market. Being able to research and innovate on small sensors in far more cost effective. And yes, they have the best patents. In other words, they make far more money than anyone esle selling sensors allowing them to spend far more money on sensor development. So, it is not surprising at all.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 25, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> Remind me, what are the equivalents to the new f1.2 and f2.0 RF lenses that have 5 stops of IS? I'm not a spec chasing fanboy (I'm still shooting an original 6D which suits my needs), but dismissing IBIS as a 'techno feature fancied by the blogosphere' is absurd. FACT - All else being equal, the RF would be a better camera if it had IBIS. We don't know whether Canon was unable to implement IBIS successfully at all, or couldn't do so while keeping 'all else equal', or simply couldn't do it at the desired price point, but whatever the reason may be the camera doesn't have it, and it's something that would be useful to many people at least some of the time.



OK point taken. But I for one don't want the extra complexity in my own personal camera. I roll a Pelican case with cameras across rough pavement and it makes me cringe at the tiny ultra-precision parts I may be rattling loose. And yes, it happens like-wise to lenses with IS, but to me it seems absurd to add IBIS when ILIS works—and works better. I don't know that for a fact but that's what I've read. One less thing to go wrong if my fragile mechanisms are in one place not both. And I don't want to pay for something I'll never use. My lenses have really good ILIS, even if I'm wrong with my numbers, precisely. I am not at all opposed to IBIS and I'm not at all opposed to Canon putting it in SOME bodies, but I hope they'll leave it out of at least as many.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Why is is 'unsatisfactory'? Equally valid questions are:
> Why can't Sony make a decent touch screen interface?
> Why can't Sony make a decent waterproofed camera
> Why have Sony put an inferior LCD and EVF in the A73?
> ...


the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality. Higher framerates, FF 4k, and greater dynamic range helps people create whatever they want easier and opens doors to new types of imagery from them.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 25, 2018)

Cthulhu said:


> That's the one reason why I'm not buying this camera: ergonomics. That touchscreen is nice but my eos M5 is practically useless for situations with moving subjects unless you're one of those who only use the center point. If it had a joystick I'd have pre ordered at first chance, even though it's a slow poke body.



I’m curious why you don’t use the touchscreen focus drag - I’ve found that I miss it when I’m back on my 5D4 after using my m5. I’ve found it to be much quicker than the joystick.


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I wasn't aware that Pentax, Hasselblad, Leica, or Sigma had IBIS. Thanks!



Pentax/Ricoh has had IBIS for well over a decade


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 25, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> I’m curious why you don’t use the touchscreen focus drag - I’ve found that I miss it when I’m back on my 5D4 after using my m5. I’ve found it to be much quicker than the joystick.



Big thumbs. Never worked well for me, though I still try from time to time.


----------



## Talys (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Why is is 'unsatisfactory'? Equally valid questions are:
> ...



I disagree, *in the context of $2,000+ cameras*. There is not a single currently manufactured USD$2,000+ camera sold today that doesn't have amazing image quality, that isn't capable of shooting award-winning photography, photography suitable for print or reportage, commercial photography, or enthusiast photography that would knock your socks off. Not one.

In a world of imperfect choices, it's just up to each buyer to pick their favorite device, and go out there make the magic happen.


----------



## Cochese (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality. Higher framerates, FF 4k, and greater dynamic range helps people create whatever they want easier and opens doors to new types of imagery from them.



I had a whole host of anecdotal stories to tell, so here are the shortened versions of a few. 

Guy 1: Groom's father. Purchased a Sony A series camera lens combo because he was told it was the best. His battery was dead an hour after he arrived at the wedding. Which is roughly an hour after he told me his camera was superior to my camera and lenses. He walked away when I told him he can photograph the wedding then. First thing he said to me was "I hope you brought spare batteries." Yeah, but I won't need but maybe one other. He scoffed at me and walked away. 

Guy 2: Parents purchased him an A7r as a gift. They were told it was the best. He lacked any skill with a camera. We walked along a hiking route photographing waterfalls for a few hours (it was a five mile trail). He initially proclaimed his camera was the best of the best and seemed annoyed when the images on the back of my screen looked better than his. 

Guy 3: Actually totally humble about his camera, but got it because he wanted to take good photos of his kids. This camera will end up in a closet in a few months. he'll just use his phone. 

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because these are literally the same stories inexperienced photographers have been screaming from their mountaintop for years. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, whatever it is. Bottom line: It's probably not the camera, it's your lousy eyes and inexperience. 
Now if you told me you were trying to use a 6D as a sports photographer, I'd probably tell you to get a better camera. 
And if you think the 5DMIV has issues with Dynamic range, I'm going to just call you an idiot. As such, the EOS R is likely the same. If you're too far to save your photos with what they offer, the Sony isn't going to help you.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 25, 2018)

Cochese said:


> I had a whole host of anecdotal stories to tell, so here are the shortened versions of a few.
> 
> Guy 1: Groom's father. Purchased a Sony A series camera lens combo because he was told it was the best. His battery was dead an hour after he arrived at the wedding. Which is roughly an hour after he told me his camera was superior to my camera and lenses. He walked away when I told him he can photograph the wedding then. First thing he said to me was "I hope you brought spare batteries." Yeah, but I won't need but maybe one other. He scoffed at me and walked away.
> 
> ...


 I am just saying the point of new technology and features. I am not hear saying a person can or cant do a job. There are different sides to this. from ergonomics. reliability, image quality, and image features. A lot of people care about the latter two above all. I just thought the dude's comparison was kinda weak.


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 25, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Two things.
> 
> 1.) I'm not trying to defend Sony. I'm not implying Sony is the best. My statements are referring to Canons position among all camera manufacturers right now. In fact, I'm looking at both nikon and sony right now as they seem to be the best options for me.
> 
> 2.) In terms of sensor performance, I'm looking for more high iso performance and dynamic range. I do mostly low light and high iso stuff (concerts, events, etc.). I have worked with my canon raw files and also sony A7III raw files. Say what you want, but the Sony files are much better quality and offer much more workability in post for my purposes.



I also happen to do mostly low light and high iso stuff (concerts mainly). My rule of thumb is "if you cannot get it right at the first place, you cannot force it to become right in post", no matter what you do: push or pull or squeeze it! Therefore, I try to use a camera that gives me the most usable straight-out-of-camera shots. Surprisingly, the 5DSR, which is often unfairly criticized for its low light performance, gives me more usable low light shots with better colors at its highest native ISO (after resizing to say 24Mpix) compared to whatever else there. If you look for workability in post, there should be something wrong with the steps preceding the post in your process!
Perhaps the same argument follows for your need for FF 4K and HD 120p.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality. Higher framerates, FF 4k, and greater dynamic range helps people create whatever they want easier and opens doors to new types of imagery from them.



So despite 10 years of domination in the quality of image sensors, why have neither Sony not Nikon take top spot? The only and I mean 'only) logical reason is that sensor quality is not top of peoples' requirements when buying a camera. Even Canon is 'good enough'
And don't spin that 'Canon have a huge legacy out there' line because in those 10 years, there have been a lot of people new to photography and a lot of old users dying and by your logic Nikon/Sony should have mopped them up.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> I disagree, *in the context of $2,000+ cameras*. There is not a single currently manufactured USD$2,000+ camera sold today that doesn't have amazing image quality, that isn't capable of shooting award-winning photography, photography suitable for print or reportage, commercial photography, or enthusiast photography that would knock your socks off. Not one.
> 
> In a world of imperfect choices, it's just up to each buyer to pick their favorite device, and go out there make the magic happen.



I agree. I was just pointing out that sensor quality is just one choiceto be made when buying a camera, and slamming Canon for poor technology when there are so many areas they do have 'modern technology' is quite pathetic. As I said, each company chooses the priorities in design - Sony majors on high tech with poor ergonomics, CaNikon concentrate on high quality with good ergonomics.
All three will converge and in 3-4 years I doubt there will be little useable difference between them.

The interesting one is Panasonic as they seem headed to have superior sensor to Canon but superior ergonomics to Sony.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> I am just saying the point of new technology and features. I am not hear saying a person can or cant do a job. There are different sides to this. from ergonomics. reliability, image quality, and image features. A lot of people care about the latter two above all. I just thought the dude's comparison was kinda weak.



As above, i was merely pointing out that Canon also has class-leading technology. but it seems with many gear heads, the definition of technology is 'the sensor' so anything that is not 'the sensor' is blithely ignored.
Do I wish the Canon had the quality of the Sony sensor? Yes.
Am I willing to forego Canon ergonomics to get one? Nope.


----------



## Talys (Sep 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I agree. I was just pointing out that sensor quality is just one choiceto be made when buying a camera, and slamming Canon for poor technology when there are so many areas they do not have 'modern technology' is quite pathetic. As I said, each company chooses the priorities in design - Sony majors on high tech with poor ergonomics, CaNikon concentrate on high quality with good ergonomics.
> All three will converge and in 3-4 years I doubt there will be little useable difference between them.
> 
> The interesting one is Panasonic as they seem headed to have superior sensor to Canon but superior ergonomics to Sony.



Totally. In a few years, the feature game will even out. I believe, that companies like Nikon and Olympus have filed DPAF or DPAF-like patents, and I have no doubt that IBIS and uncropped 4k will eventually come to Canon. Maybe at some point in there, Sony will even make a touch screen interface that lets you tap buttons and pan, pinch, and zoom photos.

Then it will come down to the same things that have separated DSLRs. Which system offers the most attractive price points versus feature set that I want? Which system has the specific lenses that I want, and at the best prices? Which system feels the best in my hands and am I the happiest using? Which system has the most/best third party accessories? Is anything a big enough difference for me to change from the system that I'm currently using?


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 25, 2018)

I’d agree with the sentiments that most modern cameras are capable of producing great images. Even the micro 4/3 cameras are excellent.
The major limiting factor is the photographer.
I am interested in mirrorless but I’m waiting for something better than the 5DIV. The EOS R is not bad but strikes me as a first attempt and that Canon could do better with future versions.
I think Canon make great cameras and have a loyal base. To continue to exist they need to keep capturing new photographers. They are gaining a reputation for not being at the forefront of technology in sensors and video. This doesn’t bother me too much but matters more to new entrants who perhaps have no experience of Canon and just read reviews. Canon need to be wary of that. It’s glass however has always been excellent and sustains a lot of its business.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I know many people will defend anything Canon does



Really? I don't know anyone who defends *everything* they do (and I'd even quibble the word 'defend' - more like, offer possible explanations why).


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2018)

Act444 said:


> ...and even that has its own set of pros and cons. Pros are obvious, some cons: worse high ISO performance, increased difficulty of getting sharp images, greater demand on lenses.
> 
> In the right conditions (and with the right “technique”), a 5DSR type camera can be head and shoulders above the rest. But in a suboptimal environment, I’d rather have a crisp (if lesser detailed) smaller 30 or 24MP image than a blurry or fuzzy 50MP one



It's worth pointing out that blur due to camera motion only shows more on higher resolution sensors viewed 1:1, because essentially you are magnifying the image more. At the image level, the same amount of shake will have the same impact. Ditto diffraction. Essentially, if X movement doesn't give you a 'blurry or fuzzy' *image* at 24MP, it won't at any higher resolution either. You're just able to resolve it better when zoomed in.


----------



## Joules (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality.


In Marketing, there is a concept that tries to link features of a product to the overall perception of the product.

Each feature can be implemented with a certain quality (for example Dynamic range 10 stops vs 12 vs 14) and a curve describes how much increasing the features quality impacts the product's total quality.

I would argue that this curve is specific to certain markets. What you said may be true for some people. For them, the sensor quality curve goes straight on forever.

But for many others, it plateaus past a certain point. You don't get much of a benefit from 10 vs 100 fps, for example, if you only shoot astro photography, where exposure times greater than a second are the only thing you use. And dynamic range is nice, but past some point, it gets hard to find cases where more of it actually produces nicer pictures.

Based on their curve shape, features are separated in expected features and excitement features. Expected ones impact product receiption negatively if they are not present or present in a low quality, but don't do much for the product in terms of excitement past a certain point. Excitement features are the opposite.

What this amounts to is that without expected features, you automatically have a negative receiption but without excitement onces, your product is at least not bad.

I think the curves are different for different users. For me, ergonomics are definitivly a a expected feature. I wouldn't want a cramped camera like my old 600D again - but I don't need more than my 80D with the decent grip and Touchscreen offers. Same for dynamic range. The 6DII doesn't offer what I'd like to see at that price point, but my 80D has never disappointed me so far. When it couldn't keep up with a scenes DR, the picture would have been a poor picture anyway due to bad lighting.

More Frames per second or high iso Performance on the other hand would be exciting to me - my 80D is good enough for, but more would still be nicer, just because.

I don't think your Statement that people would accept pain as a trade of for Image quality is something that can be said about any group of relevant size. Just look at the Smartphone photographers - they can't even accept a little weight or size for that. Image quality is 'good enough' for them, or at least not exciting enough to compensate for the effect of size and weight.


----------



## syder (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality. Higher framerates, FF 4k, and greater dynamic range helps people create whatever they want easier and opens doors to new types of imagery from them.



Who exactly are these people you're talking about? You think people who spend large portions of their working life with a camera in their hands would use something that causes them physical pain for a marginal increase in image quality? Really?? 

And frankly, who knows what you mean by image quality anyway... Resolution? DR? At base ISO or elsewhere? High ISO performance? Colour reproduction? Noise characterisitics? And that's before you get to the fact that any image taken through a lens has a range of qualities attributable to the lens not the sensor. 

That you think frame rate is something to do with image quality doesn't help your case, and frankly, what does full frame 4k have to do with image quality? I guess the Sony F55, Panasonic Varicam, Red Helium, Arri Alexa/Amira and and C700 must all be woefully inadequate video cameras as they dont have full frame sensors? Well I guess those fools in Hollywood just haven't realised it yet, but you've clearly got it all worked out.

I'm inclined to think that when you said 'people' you meant to say 'idiots'. Idiots want the 'best image quality' and are willing to endure pain to get it. Except they don't actually know what it is they want. And if they did, they'd probably be buying medium format stills cameras and cinema cameras for video. Except I guess that's too much image quality. So maybe this mythical thing isn't actually so important anyway. So why are these people willing to endure pain throughout most of their working life for this thing they don't really need? Because they're idiots.


----------



## Firillu (Sep 25, 2018)

ecpu said:


> EOS R is not a bad camera, it's just not a great camera. And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/



I think you nailed it, very sensible comment. Your last sentence sums it up nicely.

I'm not selling my Canon gear yet.. I've been a sole Canon user for 35 years, but for the first time, I'm looking around and keeping an eye on other brands.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality.


In that context, explain the fact that Sony and Nikon have delivered APS-C and FF ILCs with better base ISO sensor metrics continuously since ~2009, yet Canon has dominated the ILC market that entire time, with their current ~49% global ILC market share exceeding that of Nikon and Sony combined. (Don't worry, I'm not expecting a response since the only appropriate one would be "I was wrong," and I doubt you'll admit that.) 

In reality, you (along with some other forum members) need to come to grips with the fact that your personal priorities are not necessarily aligned with those of the broader market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2018)

Firillu said:


> > EOS R is not a bad camera, it's just not a great camera. And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/
> 
> 
> I think you nailed it, very sensible comment. Your last sentence sums it up nicely.


The EOS R sits between the 6DII and the 5DIV in the lineup based on features, has a 5DIV-like sensor, but is only 15% more expensive than the 6DII. Calling it a poor value is not sensible, it's nonsensical.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I'm looking for higher dynamic range and better high iso performance, IBIS or IS in EVERY lens, 1080p 120fps, 4k with minimal crop.



You've been unlucky in that your wishlist is precisely the things they left out. But no camera can offer everything everyone wants.

You keep talking about high ISO performance though... Canon's is no worse there than anyone else, is it?



ecpu said:


> Defend Canon all you want. They are behind the competition in many aspects regarding modern mirrorless features and performance. It's quite clear at this point.



Apart from the things listed above, what other aspects are they behind in? "Many aspects" sounds like you're overstating your case. You didn't get what you wanted, I understand the disappointment. But you're doing what a few on these forums have for years - generalising from the specific. "They're behind because they don't offer the features I want that others do" (not ahead because they offer features I don't want that others don't) is a flawed argument, and people rebutting it aren't 'defending Canon', they're reminding you of reality.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2018)

gmrza said:


> What I would like to understand better is how the introduction of the RF mount affects the future of the EF-M mount. My understanding is that electrically EF-M is basically the same as EF. That means EF-M can't enjoy many of the features that RF can. Will Canon still develop the EOS-M series, or is it dead?



The question is, what is EF-M for? From what we can tell, it's for smaller size (and perhaps lower price). Replacing EF-M with RF abolishes that advantage. Smaller size adds other restrictions - so if EF-M lenses don't get certain features RF lenses do, that's because the latter are more premium products, prioritising aspects other than size.


----------



## Cochese (Sep 25, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> I also happen to do mostly low light and high iso stuff (concerts mainly). My rule of thumb is "if you cannot get it right at the first place, you cannot force it to become right in post", no matter what you do: push or pull or squeeze it! Therefore, I try to use a camera that gives me the most usable straight-out-of-camera shots. Surprisingly, the 5DSR, which is often unfairly criticized for its low light performance, gives me more usable low light shots with better colors at its highest native ISO (after resizing to say 24Mpix) compared to whatever else there. If you look for workability in post, there should be something wrong with the steps preceding the post in your process!
> Perhaps the same argument follows for your need for FF 4K and HD 120p.



Nah, FF4K has a serious point. Mainly being, getting he most out of the lenses. Cropping that heavily is a tough pill to swallow for those wanting especially wide shots. Though, probably not the biggest deal for those looking to shoot distant nature.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> In that context, explain the fact that Sony and Nikon have delivered APS-C and FF ILCs with better base ISO sensor metrics continuously since ~2009, yet Canon has dominated the ILC market that entire time, with their current ~49% global ILC market share exceeding that of Nikon and Sony combined. (Don't worry, I'm not expecting a response since the only appropriate one would be "I was wrong," and I doubt you'll admit that.)
> 
> In reality, you (along with some other forum members) need to come to grips with the fact that your personal priorities are not necessarily aligned with those of the broader market.


How am I wrong. Canon brand in general is stronger and people are already invested in them and are used to Canon cameras. That goes further than just specs. If everyone was informed about all the current cameras equally about the specs and features, they knew what they wanted to do with them, didn't have brand loyalty, and had some cash to spar for a new camera and lenses, the sales numbers would be vastly different. There is a reason why people go to other brands, they simply did their homework, have the money, and isn't afraid to switch. My personal preference is to stay with Canon a bit longer so this isnt about my priorities. Overall I can still do what I need to do with the very reliable Canon brand but I would love a lot of the Nikon/Sony/Panasonic features/quality on a Canon.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 25, 2018)

syder said:


> Who exactly are these people you're talking about? You think people who spend large portions of their working life with a camera in their hands would use something that causes them physical pain for a marginal increase in image quality? Really??
> 
> And frankly, who knows what you mean by image quality anyway... Resolution? DR? At base ISO or elsewhere? High ISO performance? Colour reproduction? Noise characterisitics? And that's before you get to the fact that any image taken through a lens has a range of qualities attributable to the lens not the sensor.
> 
> ...


 You said a couple of things that support what I said. Those big ass cameras are painful to hold for long periods (unless rigged) but the quality is good, if not why not make big films with DSLRS, the FF thing is said because it is a FF camera and the lens are made to accommodate the camera, just like a lot of cinema lenses are S35 to accomodete those sensors. A 1.74 crop is for who, do they make 1.74 crop lenses? You dont spend $1500 or 4k on a good 35mm for it to be like 40mm or have to buy an 10-18mm crap lens just to use 4K with a reasonable viewing range at a decent price.


----------



## Adelino (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality. Higher framerates, FF 4k, and greater dynamic range helps people create whatever they want easier and opens doors to new types of imagery from them.


Then why do people ALWAYS want lighter cameras and often want smaller cameras? Ease of use matters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality.





RayValdez360 said:


> How am I wrong.


You claim that people’s #1 concern is image quality. Do you really need someone to explain to you how claiming to know everyone’s priorities is not merely wrong, it’s asinine and ludicrous?


----------



## amorse (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> How am I wrong. Canon brand in general is stronger and people are already invested in them and are used to Canon cameras. That goes further than just specs. If everyone was informed about all the current cameras equally about the specs and features, they knew what they wanted to do with them, didn't have brand loyalty, and had some cash to spar for a new camera and lenses, the sales numbers would be vastly different. There is a reason why people go to other brands, they simply did their homework, have the money, and isn't afraid to switch. My personal preference is to stay with Canon a bit longer so this isnt about my priorities. Overall I can still do what I need to do with the very reliable Canon brand but I would love a lot of the Nikon/Sony/Panasonic features/quality on a Canon.


To be fair, that is all speculation. Pinning people's choice not to move to another brand on not knowing any better, not being able to afford to move, or having brand loyalty is somewhat short sighted. There is always the possibility that those choosing to stay prefer the value proposition made by Canon's products - believe it or not, Canon does have advantages in some spaces. As consumers, we choose what best fits our needs and our needs are not identical.

I can't speak for any other user, but I am well aware of the additional benefits provided by other manufacturers and sensor performance but choose to stay, even though I'd place myself in the camp that strongly values image quality. For me, I broadly prefer Canon DSLRs because their weather sealing is better than the mirrorless options available right now, they have an un-matched lens lineup, and they have never let me down - I've never had a field failure which I couldn't fix. I'd love an extra stop of DR, sure, but that limited weather sealing has more of a likelihood of ruining a shot than a touch less DR. I can solve a DR issue by bracketing or using filters, but I can't solve poor weather sealing when I'm in a downpour. For me, Canon makes sense.

A friend of mine was looking to upgrade to a new camera and has different needs than I do. He asked for my opinion and I recommended he look at a Sony a7iii because it fit his needs well (in my mind). He ended up showing a lot more interest in the EOS R. Why? Because its EVF is much higher resolution and that was one of his top priorities, and his other priorities were equally matched between both cameras. Does that make him uneducated on the benefits of an other brand? No, that makes him a consumer that is seeking a specific feature and choosing the product which best fits his needs. 

The reality is that any consumer should choose what best fits their needs. If a Sony camera fits more peoples' needs, then Sony will grow rapidly and brands not sufficiently servicing this need will shrink. The mistake is assuming one persons needs are equivalent to everyone's needs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> If everyone was informed about all the current cameras equally about the specs and features, they knew what they wanted to do with them, didn't have brand loyalty, and had some cash to spar for a new camera and lenses, the sales numbers would be vastly different.


And you know this...how? Have you been visiting alternate realities lately? 



RayValdez360 said:


> There is a reason why people go to other brands, they simply did their homework, have the money, and isn't afraid to switch.


This is the one statement in your post that makes sense. Of course, the fact that Canon has _*gained* _market share in recent years suggests that those people who have done their homework, have the money and aren’t afraid to spend it have chosen Canon over other brands more frequently than not. Kinda blows holes in the rest of your argument, doesn’t it?


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 25, 2018)

Cochese said:


> Nah, FF4K has a serious point. Mainly being, getting he most out of the lenses. Cropping that heavily is a tough pill to swallow for those wanting especially wide shots. Though, probably not the biggest deal for those looking to shoot distant nature.


Not necessarily. Even the RED Super35 4-perf shoots with a sensor size (24.89 x 18.66mm) which is only a tad larger than the area that EOS R reads for 4K and definitely smaller than the FF (36x24mm).Those expensive video lenses all can only cover the Super35 sensor size not the FF. I have not heard any pro video producer saying that he/she cannot get a wide enough shot because his/her camera does not have or cannot read FF sensor!! I have never seen pro video producers operate the camera from the front, either.


----------



## Takingshots (Sep 25, 2018)

ecpu said:


> None of that is at all surprising. They used existing/old technology and therefore have all of the limitations of their current camera systems now present in their brand new mirrorless.
> 
> I know many people will defend anything Canon does, but there is no question that Canon offers much less for the money vs. their competitors. And with the EOS R, they have clearly committed to continuing this.
> 
> I've only ever used Canon. I like my Canon cameras. But I also like the benefits of new technology and forward thinking. I unfortunately have to take a loss on my glass collection as I transition to a competing brand. EOS R is not a bad camera, it's just not a great camera. And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/



I love Canon Camera and esp its EF lens, its color science, ease of use etc ... and you are probably right that at its (Canon EOS R) price point in comparison to others, it should at least par with Nikon Z6 /Sony A7iii to make it attractive for those who want to try this camera with the EF lens. Perhaps it will drop a little just b4 X'mas ( I could be wrong). Here's something to humor while debate goes on -


----------



## wickedac (Sep 25, 2018)

Talking about sensor performance on these current generation full frame bodies seems a little like the car magazines talking about which sub-4-second 0-60 supercar is faster. Like what's the difference really between 3.74 and 3.79 seconds 0-60? Driver skill will be a much bigger factor, but either way they're both fast as blazes! Same with these sensors. I have no wants with the 5DIV sensor-wise. 30 MP is insane resolution for me, having been using DSLR's since they were 4 MP. I have no desire for more. Same with dynamic range, etc. High ISO performance with these things is insane, you can pull shadows up like madness creating images in conditions we could only dream of image years ago. All this measure-bating is silly. Is the Sony sensor technically better on paper? A lot of people say so, so I who am I to argue? But more importantly who cares? If you were racing down the track in a Koenigsegg CCR which you be upset that it wasn't as fast as a Bugatti Chiron?


----------



## JonSnow (Sep 25, 2018)

funny how some people need to divert from sensor performance or lack of some video features whenever criticism is voiced.

some of the "senior" staff here is arguing for 6 years that way, as i noticed reading older posts lately.

just saying "yes canon lacks in sensor performance compared to sony and i wish they would be as good" is not possible for some people.
"i wish canon would have IBIS and 4K without a heavy crop".... not possible to say for some.

or at least be open minded that other people want these features. nope... they need to divert to lens collection, market share, ergonomics, support.
it is an instant reflex for some.

some people don´t see all the benefits in canon cameras but sure some other people here won´t acknowledge shortcomings either (some may do with grinding teeth).

and it´s always the same arguments from both sides..... for 6, maybe 7 years.
and they all claim they are not fanboys ... LOL
you don´t waste your live writing 10000+ post on a GEAR forum when you are not a BRAND fanboy.


by the way:

i think the EOS R is a nice camera for my needs (won´t buy it because i have a 5D MK4). if i had no 5D MK4 i would wait until it is 200 euro cheaper.
but i saw some videos that showed some ugly banding when pushing shadows. noticable worse than the 5D MK4.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Canon may lead in camera marketshare, but Sony totally dominates the sensor game. Current estimates say they now command about 50% of the market. A recent article posted here demonstrated that Sony's huge advantage comes from their domination of the smartphone sensor market. Being able to research and innovate on small sensors in far more cost effective. And yes, they have the best patents. In other words, they make far more money than anyone esle selling sensors allowing them to spend far more money on sensor development. So, it is not surprising at all.



No, you misunderstood- it’s not surprising that Sony dominates (I was guessing they had roughly 50% based on who they sell sensors to), but what is surprising is that the #1 camera company doesn’t have equivalent sensor tech. I love the fact that Canon seems to do sensors themselves but perhaps they need to partner with Samsung. 

Anyone have any info on how much / and what sensors Canon outsources, if any? Would love to know more about this.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 25, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Not necessarily. Even the RED Super35 4-perf shoots with a sensor size (24.89 x 18.66mm) which is only a tad larger than the area that EOS R reads for 4K and definitely smaller than the FF (36x24mm).Those expensive video lenses all can only cover the Super35 sensor size not the FF. I have not heard any pro video producer saying that he/she cannot get a wide enough shot because his/her camera does not have or cannot read FF sensor!! I have never seen pro video producers operate the camera from the front, either.



If a pro video producer wants to buy a nice stills camera that will also serve as a backup video camera, however, he / she may be turned off by a 1.7x, jello ridden crop. Pro video producers were very excited about FF HD video when the 5DII enabled it 8 years ago and this same functionality with newer 4K video is what is lacking in Canon’s current generation of FF 6D/5D class cameras now. Not to mention, the video quality is just not that sharp or inspiring. 

With FF 4K 60p, pro video producers (and many hobbyists) would buy these things en masse for the purposes I described above.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Anyone have any info on how much / and what sensors Canon outsources, if any? Would love to know more about this.


My understanding is that APS-C/Super35-sized and FF sensors are produced internally, whereas smaller sensors for many but not all models (of PowerShots and camcorders) are purchased from other manufacturers.


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 25, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> what is surprising is that the #1 camera company doesn’t have equivalent sensor tech.



A point of view could be that Canon isn't the n°1 camera company. It's Apple. Dedicated cameras (whether for video or stills) represent only a tiny percentage of the overall imaging sensor market. Canon may dominate the camera market, but their share of the imaging sensors market fell at 3% in 2016 - and most likely even lower today (vs more than 9% in 2012) : https://www.vision-systems.com/arti...nsors-expand-machine-vision-applications.html
It's even lower now than Panasonic . 
I guess that this is one of the reasons why Canon decided in 2016 to sell sensors to third parties.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 25, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> ...To continue to exist they need to keep capturing new photographers. They are gaining a reputation for not being at the forefront of technology in sensors and video. This doesn’t bother me too much but matters more to new entrants who perhaps have no experience of Canon and just read reviews. Canon need to be wary of that. /QUOTE]
> 
> Yes, it is worrisome to Canon, I am sure, that they have this reputation. And it should be worrisome to anyone who doesn't have an agenda, but is interested in accuracy. The reputation comes from all the ignorant reveiwers and (probable) Sony trolls who have realized that public perception can be influenced by what are essentially propaganda videos and reviews - mainly on YouTube. Even though people joke, "It must be true, I saw it on the internet," they do act as if what they see on the internet is true. You can see this attitude every day on this forum as well as others - as people continually base their opinions on what they read on the internet. Obviously, there are accurate and truthful reviews out there, but the amount of propaganda is overwhelming. Within a day or two, look how many videos absolutely slammed both Nikon and Canon upon their FF mirrorless announcements. It's shameful, as most of these videos were clearly done with a "pro-Sony" aganda in mind, and by folks who couldn't possibly have had enough time to really review the camera. And, yet, when Sony releases a new camera, we see none of these slamming videos - even though actual Sony users can find plenty to complain about as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## dak723 (Sep 25, 2018)

scyrene said:


> The question is, what is EF-M for? From what we can tell, it's for smaller size (and perhaps lower price). Replacing EF-M with RF abolishes that advantage. Smaller size adds other restrictions - so if EF-M lenses don't get certain features RF lenses do, that's because the latter are more premium products, prioritising aspects other than size.



I believe in one of the Rudy Winston Canon videos announcing the "R", he refers to the EOS M as Canon's "Compact line". For those wanting really small and light (and inexpensive) it is a great choice, in my opinion. While I'm interested in the R, I have no plans to sell or no longer use my M50. In all likelihood, I will use it more than the R for general shooting due to its size (and the wide focal range of the 18-150 lens).


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> The adaptors with control ring or filters is really smart, in my opinion. The closing curtains when changing lenses is another really useful innovation.



I'm not sure that I'd have picked these two as "innovative" features.
- regarding the adapters, we won't be talking about them much in 10 years. It's a terrific idea to add value to existing EF lenses on the RF mount, but not a useful idea in the long run.
- regarding the shutter : that will only be of value for a few years until mechanical shutters disappear altogether from our cameras (thanks to fast enough electronic shutters). So Canon will have, just like anyone else, to find ways to make the sensor's coverglass resistant to damage at some point. Besides I'm not 100% sold on the idea that exposing the shutter blades is a much better idea than exposing the sensor's cover filters.

Personally there are other features from the R that I find more interesting, at least on a conceptual, theoretical basis, and for the longer term (I'm not sold on the implementation). I like very much, for example, the digitalisation of the mode dial (although the execution is a mixed bag) - and Canon's first tentative and still quite timid attempt to get rid of the dated mode concept with the Fv mode (very similar to Pentax's hyper mode, though). None of that is truly _innovative_ (the Phase One XF got rid of the mode concept a while ago), but I see this as a more interesting evolution for cameras going forward. Same applies to Canon acknowledging DPAF's ability to make software points a fully software construct by providing more than 5000 AF points and trying to design the camera to handle this number of AF points without becoming too cumbersome. The focus aid feature with tracking isn't new as it was already present on their video cameras, but it's one of the most genuinely useful feature I've seen in the last few years for manual focusing.


----------



## Talys (Sep 25, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> How am I wrong. Canon brand in general is stronger and people are already invested in them and are used to Canon cameras. That goes further than just specs. If everyone was informed about all the current cameras equally about the specs and features, they knew what they wanted to do with them, didn't have brand loyalty, and had some cash to spar for a new camera and lenses, the sales numbers would be vastly different. There is a reason why people go to other brands, they simply did their homework, have the money, and isn't afraid to switch. My personal preference is to stay with Canon a bit longer so this isnt about my priorities. Overall I can still do what I need to do with the very reliable Canon brand but I would love a lot of the Nikon/Sony/Panasonic features/quality on a Canon.



The problem I have with your whole argument comes down to the "if people did their homework" part. You're basically saying, if people would compare spec sheets and lab tests and listen to reviewers who compare spec sheets and lab tests, many people would leave Canon. But doing your homework should be about more than comparing spec sheets and looking at numbers on a chart. It should involve renting or borrowing a camera system that you'll invest at least $3,000 on, and seeing if it serves your purposes.

For me, in 2018, the lab tests and spec sheets are fun to look at, but play almost no part in my buying decision. I'd much rather try the device and decide based on the photographs I am able to get from it and how it handles situations that I'm most often have to deal with or work around.

From a macro level, you're also making the assumption that most people who are buying full frame cameras aren't informed buyers. I don't think that's true -- I do not believe people who buy expensive cameras are all brand-loyal lemmings or financially locked in to the system. I know that I am not. I've given both the Sony A7R3 and the Nikon D850 a fair shake, and while I really like some features in each of them, not only are none of those are enough to compel me to switch, but looking at the device overall, I just prefer my 6D2 -- and if only it had a flippy screen, a 5D4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2018)

JonSnow said:


> funny how some people need to divert from sensor performance or lack of some video features whenever criticism is voiced.
> 
> some of the "senior" staff here is arguing for 6 years that way, as i noticed reading older posts lately.
> 
> ...


Funny how some people think a statement of relevant facts constitutes a diversion.

Just saying yes Canon delivers products with features and performance that the majority of buyers find desirable is not possible for some people.

"I wish Sony had an extensive, more affordable lens lineup, a more intuitive user interface and better weather sealing,"...not possible to say for some.

Or at least be open minded that their personal desires may not represent those of the majority. Nope…they need to continually harp on base ISO DR and 4K video specifications. It is a habitual reflex for some.

Some people don´t see all the shortcomings in Canon cameras but sure some other people here won´t acknowledge benefits either (some may do with grinding teeth).

And it´s always the same arguments from both sides...for 6, maybe 7 years. They all claim they are not trolls ... LOL
you don´t create multiple new accounts or post many similar threads on the same topic on a GEAR forum when you are not a TROLL.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 25, 2018)

Cthulhu said:


> Big thumbs. Never worked well for me, though I still try from time to time.


Hah! That makes sense.


----------



## syder (Sep 25, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> If a pro video producer wants to buy a nice stills camera that will also serve as a backup video camera, however, he / she may be turned off by a 1.7x, jello ridden crop. Pro video producers were very excited about FF HD video when the 5DII enabled it 8 years ago and this same functionality with newer 4K video is what is lacking in Canon’s current generation of FF 6D/5D class cameras now. Not to mention, the video quality is just not that sharp or inspiring.
> 
> With FF 4K 60p, pro video producers (and many hobbyists) would buy these things en masse for the purposes I described above.



As a video producer, I'd ideally like a 1.4x or 1.5x crop to match the C200 I use as an A camera. Not a FF camera. I certainly dont care about 60fps, which the A camera does, but is probably used less than 1% of the time on it. Most important feature in a B camera for interviews etc for me would be reliable AF as I wouldn't be operating it a lot of the time. Which would rule out everyone but Canon at the moment. I'd also really like the colour science to match my A camera, so if I had an FS7 I'd think about an A7s and if I had an EVA1 I'd look at the GH5. But I don't feel the need for a B camera 90% of the time, and if I did I'd take one of the C100s or the 5d4 with me.

B cameras for production companies and indie filmmakers is not a mass market. It's a very small niche. Understanding things like this is why Canon sells lots of cameras.

People (including me) loved using the 5Dm2 for picture only work (music videos etc, not really documentaries) not just because of the large sensor, but because it made interchangable lens systems for video affordable for small independents. Suddenly you could use fast primes, TSEs, macros, superteles etc to create all kinds of images that previously required serious amounts of money (whether shooting 16/35mm film or something like the old Red One). And the low light performance (especially with an f1.2/f1.4 prime) blew away the EX1/HVX200 style cameras that we'd been using before then.

Looking back to the 5DMii, it had relatively soft 1080p video with horrible moire, hell, at launch you couldn't even change aperture in video mode, let alone record at 120fps, IBIS, 4K, DPAF etc. It was used on features, tv etc... And you think the R is going to be unuable as a B cam? 

If you cant take inspiring images with just about any contemporary camera the problem isn't the camera. Sorry.


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 25, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> If a pro video producer wants to buy a nice stills camera that will also serve as a backup video camera, however, he / she may be turned off by a 1.7x, jello ridden crop. Pro video producers were very excited about FF HD video when the 5DII enabled it 8 years ago and this same functionality with newer 4K video is what is lacking in Canon’s current generation of FF 6D/5D class cameras now. Not to mention, the video quality is just not that sharp or inspiring.
> 
> With FF 4K 60p, pro video producers (and many hobbyists) would buy these things en masse for the purposes I described above.



It seems that you are quite expert in video with ML/DSLR cameras and strong opinion against 4K crop. So please tell me what is wrong with the crop? You want exact 4K pixels and you get exact 4K pixels. Field of view is narrower that FF, so what? It is supposed to be narrower because it is meant to match that of what you can get from a Super-35 "pro" camera. Want wider view? Use wider lenses. Want shallow DoF? Use faster lenses. Want to stand in front of camera and shoot yourself? Well that is where the usability gets a question mark and complaints arise!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2018)

syder said:


> Understanding things like this is why Canon sells lots of cameras.



Conversely, many of the commentators on this forum haven't got a clue about the realities of these markets.




syder said:


> If you cant take inspiring images with just about any contemporary camera the problem isn't the camera. Sorry.


Never apologize for stating the truth.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 26, 2018)

Can anyone speak to how the EOS R handles Eye-AF through the EVF with an external flash? In other words, could I capture images using Eye-AF, while looking through the EVF, in conjunction with strobes?

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I shoot on an old 7D and use its outdated phase detection system. Am truly excited about Canon's mirrorless systems and better AF performance, especially for Eye-AF and Face Detect AF, as long as they work while looking through the EVF + using strobes.


----------



## Firillu (Sep 26, 2018)

Interesting comments. As always, many people cannot unshackle themselves from their brand and tribe biases.

I've been using Canon for 35 years and pretty much the only brand I know and am confident with. I earn my living using Canon gear. I don't want to trash the brand and devalue the re-sale value of my gear.

However I can't help notice that Canon's attempt with mirrorless is noticeably late, and somewhat reluctant, and not exactly as up to scratch with other modern systems. Other brands seem to solve issues that Canon, at this point in time, cannot. IBIS is one obvious one.The choice of mount making it incompatible with APS mirrorless can also be an issue.

Again, I don't want to trash the brand. I love Canon, their reliability, and unparalleled vast choice of lenses. EOS R is not what I was hoping for.


----------



## Firillu (Sep 26, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EOS R sits between the 6DII and the 5DIV in the lineup based on features, has a 5DIV-like sensor, but is only 15% more expensive than the 6DII. Calling it a poor value is not sensible, it's nonsensical.



EOS R stands on its own. At this stage it is a one body full frame mirrorless system. The 5D and 6D are reflex cameras. For me it is not particularly good value, but other will see it differently according to their needs and expectations.


----------



## Firillu (Sep 26, 2018)

it looks like Canon are yet to decide whether to introduce IBIS in future camera.

I find this to be very confusing, Shall I invest in IS lenses? Why miss a massive opportunity like this, and not make IBIS standard on every body of a new system?

it appears to me that Canon's R&D are not as capable as other brands'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2018)

Firillu said:


> it looks like Canon are yet to decide whether to introduce IBIS in future camera.
> 
> I find this to be very confusing, Shall I invest in IS lenses?


To that point, I wouldn't be concerned. Other manufacturers have integrated lens IS and IBIS to add effectiveness, most likely Canon could do the same. Canon is part way there already, in that the EOS R uses data from the camera's gyroscopic sensors to enhance the effectiveness of lens IS.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 26, 2018)

Firillu said:


> Shall I invest in IS lenses? .


I suppose it depends on what camera body you have and expect to have - given you seem unlikely to shift anytime soon to Canon FFM. Presumably you have made ongoing decisions about whether to buy IS lenses already, given that previous Canon FF cameras haven't had IBIS?
Remarkable how long you've stuck with them if you have such a poor view of their R&D over time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2018)

Firillu said:


> However I can't help notice that Canon's attempt with mirrorless is noticeably late, and somewhat reluctant, and not exactly as up to scratch with other modern systems. Other brands seem to solve issues that Canon, at this point in time, cannot. IBIS is one obvious one.The choice of mount making it incompatible with APS mirrorless can also be an issue.


I'll point out that similar comments were made about the EOS M at launch – late to the party and underdressed, so to speak. Nevertheless, the original M was a major domestic success for Canon (#2 in sales at full price, behind only a 2-gen old, deeply discounted Sony NEX), and the M line went on to be globally successful.

I also think the RF / EF-M incompatiblity is an issue. But we should keep in mind that Canon has actual data that informed their decision, e.g. the fraction of APS-C DSLR users who bought EF lenses prior to buying a FF DSLR, etc., and so from their perspective it may have been a non-issue.


----------



## syder (Sep 26, 2018)

Firillu said:


> it looks like Canon are yet to decide whether to introduce IBIS in future camera.
> 
> I find this to be very confusing, Shall I invest in IS lenses? Why miss a massive opportunity like this, and not make IBIS standard on every body of a new system?
> 
> it appears to me that Canon's R&D are not as capable as brand's.



Here's the reason a Panasonic exec gave for IBIS not being a part of the GH5s (it is part of the GH5, they chose not to put it in the newer, more expensive version):

“_Where in the cinema world do you see in body image stabilization? It’s just not a thing. The reason is heat dissipation._ […]

_Panasonic did a poll with the shooters they have designed the GH5S for, and they said “look, we are going to put this on a rig, we are going to put this on a stabilizer, we don’t need IBIS. It’s going to affect our image.”_

_Having internal IBIS is going to increase the noise because of the heat. It’s just one more way to reduce noise in this camera'_

So we have people on this thread crying about how they need the absolute best image quality, whilst also whinging that a feature which increases noise (and therefore reduces image quality) isn't present. 

As with most things in life, there is no best fit for all situations. The R doesn't have IBIS. It has a slightly bigger than ideal crop for video (1.7x vs 1.4/1.5x). It probably wont look good if you whip pan a lot (rolling shutter - tbh I've never really had this as problem because I almost never whip pan). If you shoot a lot of slow motion there are far better options out there. On the other hand, it does have DPAF, face/eye tracking, the really useful MF focus guide feature, touchscreen AF, unique and exciting RF lenses, clog, it will output a 10-bit 4:2:2 BT2020 image via HDMI, and the EF adapter with a drop in variable ND filter. The last one of those is potentially a huge time-saving/quality-of life improvement for people who can't afford a cinema/video camera with built in NDs and who're doing time-critical work and is unique (AFAIK) to the R at present. 

Those may not be the specific features that you want, they aren't actually the specific features that will make me rush out and buy a camera right now (although tbh I don't really want to buy another camera at the moment), but they will be what a large section of people do want. If you dont need DPAF, never have the need for NDs and don't like the RF lenses but do really want IBIS and to shoot really, really spectacularly wide angle video (which distorts people horribly, so isn't something I often need, unlike with landscape/architectural photography) look at another brand. Just dont pretend that any manufacturer hits all of the useful features that other brands/models offer.

You could cobble together a fantasy camera with your dream list of features drawn from bits of each manufacture's offerings: DPAF, EF lens breadth, Canon colour science Arri colour science, with a Sony BSI sensor Red Monstro sensor, A7Sii high ISO performance, IBIS, REDcode RAW codecs, GH5 slo-mo Phantom v2640 slo-mo capbilities, built in NDs, XLRs, SDi out, all with a list price of less than $2k... But that camera only exists in your imagination.


----------



## Firillu (Sep 26, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Other manufacturers have integrated lens IS and IBIS to add effectiveness.



I don't really follow other brands, and I was not aware of that I'll admit. Which ones do that?


----------



## Firillu (Sep 26, 2018)

Jethro said:


> I suppose it depends on what camera body you have and expect to have - given you seem unlikely to shift anytime soon to Canon FFM..



Actually, I'm keen on full frame mirrorless, but not necessarily to ditch my 5D Mk4 as yet. For my work, a mirror and prism can't be beaten by an electronic viewfinder just yet. Of course I am yet to test the EOS R for that.



Jethro said:


> Remarkable how long you've stuck with them if you have such a poor view of their R&D over time.



As I said, Canon has been extremely good for me. I have zero knowledge of what their R&D is up to and I assume you the same. However my view is that Canon is not the top of the heap with innovations as it once was.


----------



## robotfist (Sep 26, 2018)

syder said:


> As a video producer, I'd ideally like a 1.4x or 1.5x crop to match the C200 I use as an A camera. Not a FF camera. I certainly dont care about 60fps, which the A camera does, but is probably used less than 1% of the time on it.



I feel the exact opposite concerning everything you cited here. I actually want my B camera to posses a slightly different look than my A cam (but with the same color science so they still match). I absolutely want full frame video. I love having the option of getting that shallow depth of field when I need it and being able to capture a different mood and tone than my C200. Having quick access to a full frame camera on set just gives you more creative options for storytelling. It’s one of the big advantages the FS7 has. Being able to use that speedbooster and get that full frame look on that camera is just awesome. The image is beautiful. 

And when I shoot b-roll I probably shoot 60fps more than any other frame rate. Premiere conforms 60fps to 24fps automatically and I like the option of being to overcrank any shot I need when I want to.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 26, 2018)

Firillu said:


> As I said, Canon has been extremely good for me. I have zero knowledge of what their R&D is up to and I assume you the same. However my view is that Canon is not the top of the heap with innovations as it once was.


Well, given you 'don't really follow other brands', commenting on the state of Canon's R&D seems a bit of a stretch. 

But, in fact the EOS R shows perfectly well where Canon's direction is going, particularly with the new lens mount. The thing about 'R&D' and 'development' is that they happen over time. The EOS R is the first of what will certainly be a new range of bodies to support the new mount. Everyone, including Canon reps, are saying this. The EOS R seems to be a mid-range first step. For a lot of people (potentially including me after I see some detailed reviews with production models) it will represent a good expansion path from lower range FF or crop bodies. Others with existing higher range FF bodies, or particular needs (eg video or higher frame rates), will likely wait (if they can) for higher spec'd FFM bodies. The (particularly innovative and unique) EF lens adaptors are a plus for me in that equation.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2018)

Firillu said:


> I can't help notice that Canon's attempt with mirrorless is noticeably late, and somewhat reluctant, and not exactly as up to scratch with other modern systems.



You mean FF mirrorless, right? The M series has been around for years. And late? The same time as Nikon and apparently Panasonic? Only later than Sony, you mean.



Firillu said:


> Other brands seem to solve issues that Canon, at this point in time, cannot. IBIS is one obvious one.



And vice versa, right? You want to be fair, don't you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2018)

Firillu said:


> > Other manufacturers have integrated lens IS and IBIS to add effectiveness.
> 
> 
> I don't really follow other brands, and I was not aware of that I'll admit. Which ones do that?


Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji.


----------



## simonxu11 (Sep 26, 2018)

syder said:


> Here's the reason a Panasonic exec gave for IBIS not being a part of the GH5s (it is part of the GH5, they chose not to put it in the newer, more expensive version):
> 
> “_Where in the cinema world do you see in body image stabilization? It’s just not a thing. The reason is heat dissipation._ […]
> 
> ...



47MP FF with 4K 60P and IBIS from Panasonic
https://www.dpreview.com/news/91596...l-frame-mirrorless-cameras-with-leica-l-mount

100MP MF with IBIS from Fuji
https://www.dpreview.com/news/49933...p-medium-format-with-phase-detection-and-ibis


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 26, 2018)

simonxu11 said:


> 47MP FF with 4K 60P and IBIS from Panasonic
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/91596...l-frame-mirrorless-cameras-with-leica-l-mount
> 
> 100MP MF with IBIS from Fuji
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/49933...p-medium-format-with-phase-detection-and-ibis



The key word is 'developing'. They don't have it yet. 
Sony also has IBIS for FF sensor but from what I read it is nowhere as good as the 5 stop IBIS that Olympus/Panasonic has. And Canon have indicated they have some form - and the link Syder gave simply supports the comments Canon gave as to why they did not include it on the 'R'. IMO this highlights the differences in design philosophy between Canon and Sony - Sony will release it anyway simply to say 'look what we've got guys' (nothing wrong with that) whereas Canon wants it to meet a certain standard before they release it: nothing wrong with that either unless you are spec-hunting measurebator.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Sep 26, 2018)

*"When developing the EOS R, we looked at all the hardware we had in the pipeline. When we look at the image processor and CMOS sensors that we have — we have restrictions, unfortunately, and that’s why we ended up with the 1.7x crop."*

Then stopping using your own sensors. the 1.74x crop was bad back in 2016, what makes you think it's fine in 2018? If your sensors are the bottleneck, use something else.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 26, 2018)

JonSnow said:


> funny how some people need to divert from sensor performance or lack of some video features whenever criticism is voiced.
> 
> some of the "senior" staff here is arguing for 6 years that way, as i noticed reading older posts lately.
> 
> ...




And some people think that repeated criticism of the same points that many people have already brought up is a great idea when there are already multiple threads that span dozens of pages going over the same ground again and again and again... Face it, the topic is sensitive to people because some have used inflammatory language to say that Canon was obsolete/will go out of business if they don't have "x" feature, and over the years, it has not proven true. How many userids have minimal number of comments criticizing Canon and that's it? Probably hundreds if not thousands... many people do like trolling this forum. Not realizing that and starting another thread to say the same thing... well, is it any wonder that it brings hostile comments? Longtime members know each other, and criticism from one on a topic will not bring the same response because we know where they stand -- they're not trolls.

Canon's greatest advantage is its glass. Its lenses are excellent and many of them are much cheaper than their Nikon and Sony counterparts. Take a look at the price differences for the 70-200, 400 f/2.8s, etc.

Yes, it would be great if Canon can design and produce sensors as efficient as Sony, but I'm glad that Canon is still doing it on it's own. A monopoly on sensor technology is not good in the long run.

I too have a 5DIV, and I'm intrigued by what Canon is doing with the R system. I'll wait for a R body that is better than the 5DIV, but the 28-70 and 50 RF lenses are intriguing. Now that Canon and Nikon have mirrorless entries that will stem the defections to Sony, it'll put more pressure on Sony to find new ways to grow... especially now that Panasonic is intending to win the video front with 8K by 2020.


----------



## ScottO (Sep 26, 2018)

Call me the Canon fanboy if you’d like, the only cameras I now own are Canon. However in the past two years I have owned two Sony a7 series cameras as well as rented multiple Nikon platforms for testing. Over the years I’ve shot 35mm, medium format, and large format cameras by many manufacturers and I’m still with Canon. I often shoot with people who shoot both Nikon and Sony and they keep asking me why are your image always sharper than mine when we often use the same tripod in exactly the same position. How do you manage to get those colors without spending hours in post. So I take exception to statements that Canon is behind in any area compared to Sony and Nikon. 

The EOS R may not be a camera for everyone for every purpose I certainly wouldn’t take it to shoot the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds. However I would not feel ill-equipped using it on statics at any air show. I have two on order to replace a couple of aging 5D Mark iv’s. It may not have the specs that some of you wish but I know having had just a few minutes hands-on with the camera it’s going to be a solid and productive platform for me and for anyone else that can see past the spec list.

Viva the revolution


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 26, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> *"When developing the EOS R, we looked at all the hardware we had in the pipeline. When we look at the image processor and CMOS sensors that we have — we have restrictions, unfortunately, and that’s why we ended up with the 1.7x crop."*
> 
> Then stopping using your own sensors. the 1.74x crop was bad back in 2016, what makes you think it's fine in 2018? If your sensors are the bottleneck, use something else.



Bottleneck to what? 
Can you show me any evidence that their policy has so far hurt them and led to a decrease in their global market share. 

I am sure you will make vague claims as to what drives the market, or produce some numbers from a single market sub-section and extrapolate that to supporting any claim that Canon are ******* but let's talk real supportable data.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 26, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> A point of view could be that Canon isn't the n°1 camera company. It's Apple. Dedicated cameras (whether for video or stills) represent only a tiny percentage of the overall imaging sensor market. Canon may dominate the camera market, but their share of the imaging sensors market fell at 3% in 2016 - and most likely even lower today (vs more than 9% in 2012) : https://www.vision-systems.com/arti...nsors-expand-machine-vision-applications.html
> It's even lower now than Panasonic .
> I guess that this is one of the reasons why Canon decided in 2016 to sell sensors to third parties.



Agreed- the reality is that Apple is the #1 camera company in the world- but because their cameras fall into the smartphone category, we don't "count" it here. It is worth noting, however, that Sony is currently a major supplier of their sensors. The iPhone X has a Sony made sensor.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 26, 2018)

syder said:


> As a video producer, I'd ideally like a 1.4x or 1.5x crop to match the C200 I use as an A camera. Not a FF camera. I certainly dont care about 60fps, which the A camera does, but is probably used less than 1% of the time on it. Most important feature in a B camera for interviews etc for me would be reliable AF as I wouldn't be operating it a lot of the time. Which would rule out everyone but Canon at the moment. I'd also really like the colour science to match my A camera, so if I had an FS7 I'd think about an A7s and if I had an EVA1 I'd look at the GH5. But I don't feel the need for a B camera 90% of the time, and if I did I'd take one of the C100s or the 5d4 with me.
> 
> B cameras for production companies and indie filmmakers is not a mass market. It's a very small niche. Understanding things like this is why Canon sells lots of cameras.
> 
> ...



Usually, the problem isn't the camera- you're right. Operator error or lack of vision. That's never been my problem, though 

With the 5DII, I got hooked on that FF look. And you're right- it is soft 1080p video- but the FF look made me overlook that, as it was (back then), the only camera capable of it.

But you completely missed the point-

Now, even in 2018, the 4K from the 5DIV and EOS-R, even with the 1.7x crop _is still soft_. When you compare it to a Sony FF or a Fuji (1.5x crop), the Canon 4K video quality is noticeably inferior. So your claim about operator error being the issue glosses over a consistent issue with Canon's video quality- apparently limited by sensor and processor technology in their still cameras. I don't know about your video quality standards, but when I see the 4K video coming out of the EOS-R or the 5D despite their superior focusing systems and ergonomics, I am not impressed. And crappy video is not inspiring.

As for the overall merits of FF video-

Most of the time, in the cinema world, APS-C or Super 35mm cameras and sensors are more than adequate for the purposes of storytelling. However, there is a magic quality to the FF look. Which is why Sony has come out with the Venice, Arri has come out with the ALEXA LF (Large Format), why RED has the Monstro, and why Canon has released the EOS C700 FF. People love the FF look- I'm not the only one.

So, in other words, almost all the major cinema camera manufacturers, including Canon, disagree with you. Sorry


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 26, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> It seems that you are quite expert in video with ML/DSLR cameras and strong opinion against 4K crop. So please tell me what is wrong with the crop? You want exact 4K pixels and you get exact 4K pixels. Field of view is narrower that FF, so what? It is supposed to be narrower because it is meant to match that of what you can get from a Super-35 "pro" camera. Want wider view? Use wider lenses. Want shallow DoF? Use faster lenses. Want to stand in front of camera and shoot yourself? Well that is where the usability gets a question mark and complaints arise!



I have nothing against APS-C or Super 35 but when I buy a FF stills camera I also want my 4K video to be FF- otherwise, you have to adjust for composition by zooming out or changing lenses while using it. That's a very simple answer to your question


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 26, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Usually, the problem isn't the camera- you're right. Operator error or lack of vision. That's never been my problem, though
> 
> With the 5DII, I got hooked on that FF look. And you're right- it is soft 1080p video- but the FF look made me overlook that, as it was (back then), the only camera capable of it.
> 
> ...


It looks like there are plenty of “Magic” video cameras for you to select from. The canon R is clearly not for you.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> *"When developing the EOS R, we looked at all the hardware we had in the pipeline. When we look at the image processor and CMOS sensors that we have — we have restrictions, unfortunately, and that’s why we ended up with the 1.7x crop."*
> 
> Then stopping using your own sensors. the 1.74x crop was bad back in 2016, what makes you think it's fine in 2018? If your sensors are the bottleneck, use something else.



Because it would cost them more (maybe - at least they'd be paying a supplier), and I assume they don't think the crop will lose them so many customers that it matters for sales. And competition is good, right? If all sensors were made by the same company, we'd all lose out (no?)


----------



## SaP34US (Sep 26, 2018)

For entering FF that not be as much problem for since they would Anything othe then EF-S lens. However I would the 35 mm Macro lens and other Efs glass until can afford EF glass.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 26, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> ... If everyone was informed about all the current cameras equally about the specs and features, they knew what they wanted to do with them, didn't have brand loyalty, and had some cash to spar for a new camera and lenses, the sales numbers would be vastly different. There is a reason why people go to other brands, they simply did their homework, have the money, and isn't afraid to switch.


\

No offense, but what a bunch of crap. How dare you insinuate that people who stay with Canon are ignorant or don't do their homework. You cannot seem to grasp the concept that other photographers differ from you. That other photographers may have different priorities or needs than you. When looking for a new camera a number of years ago, I didn't just do my homework - I either rented or bought different cameras. In the end, I bought a Canon 6D. When I wanted a crop camera as well, I ended up with both an Olympus E-M1 and a Canon SL1. My first camera was an Olympus, and while fond of that camera (OM-1) I didn't have any brand loyalty. I had no brand loyalty to Canon whatsoever. I do not own a collection of old glass, so existing lenses played no part in my buying decisions.

At some point after joining CR, I began to read post after post about Sony and their superiority. So, once agin, going beyond doing y homework, I bought the A7 II to compare with my 6D. In terms of what I was most interested in a camera, the Sony was probably the worst camera/lens combination that I have ever owned. In terms of ergonomics, color, viewfinder, tonal curves and overall IQ, the Canon was superior in every way (so was the Olympus). The Sony undersexposd by 1 1/2 stops, which did not give me any confidence in any other aspect of the camera. In many cases, the differences were small, in others, more pronounced. Not being able to afford the over $1000 lenses that Sony offers, I used the kit lens (actually tried two of them). They were awful. Whether it was due to the lens or the short flange distance I cannot know for sure, but I suspect the latter.

Now, I have no issue with anyone buying the camera that best suits their needs - that is, of course, what everyone should do. If DR is the most important thing for you and you find that Sony lifts shadows better, then by all means you should get a Sony. If certain video features are your highest priority, then get the brand that meets your needs. But, please, don't assume your needs are the same as anyone else's. Or that "doing your homework" leads anyone else to the same conclusion that you reach. And if "doing your homework" involves only reading revfiews on the internet or viewing YouTube videos, then your opinion is pretty much meaningless considering the number of reveiws that are intentionally biased. I tried various cameras and chose Canon. Sorry to disprove your comments.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 26, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> It looks like there are plenty of “Magic” video cameras for you to select from. The canon R is clearly not for you.



Thanks- you really added a lot to the conversation.


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 26, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> As for the overall merits of FF video-
> Most of the time, in the cinema world, APS-C or Super 35mm cameras and sensors are more than adequate for the purposes of storytelling. However, there is a magic quality to the FF look. Which is why Sony has come out with the Venice, Arri has come out with the ALEXA LF (Large Format), why RED has the Monstro, and why Canon has released the EOS C700 FF. People love the FF look- I'm not the only one.
> 
> So, in other words, almost all the major cinema camera manufacturers, including Canon, disagree with you. Sorry



Yes, you get great FF look from dedicated video cameras that cost +40K.
or -- you get crap FF look mixed with jello and soft cream from ML/DSLR cameras that cost 2-6K.
or -- you get good cropped (super 35) look from dedicated video cameras that cost 5-15K.
or -- you get semi-crap cropped look from ML/DSLR cameras that cost 1-4K.
the choice is on the user of each of these options.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 26, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Yes, you get great FF look from dedicated video cameras that cost +40K.
> or -- you get crap FF look mixed with jello and soft cream from ML/DSLR cameras that cost 2-6K.
> or -- you get good cropped (super 35) look from dedicated video cameras that cost 5-15K.
> or -- you get semi-crap cropped look from ML/DSLR cameras that cost 1-4K.
> the choice is on the user of each of these options.



I don't believe you're up to date on the video quality achievable on mirrorless (and some DSLR) cameras.


----------



## pgrillone (Sep 26, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I think it's just a matter of curiosity. But I Agree. Canon is likely going to be behind for quite some time. If we want/need modern features and performance, we have to face the fact that we must move on.


Totally agree, CANON isn't even on par with the current DLSR market, why would we expect them to all of a sudden stand up and be noticed in the mirrorless market.


----------



## pgrillone (Sep 26, 2018)

The only thing at photkina that made the Nikon Z7 look good was the Canon R. Fuji is totally walking away with photokina.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 26, 2018)

pgrillone said:


> Totally agree, CANON isn't even on par with the current DLSR market, why would we expect them to all of a sudden stand up and be noticed in the mirrorless market.



Really? Do you care to expand on that?


----------



## pgrillone (Sep 26, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Really? Do you care to expand on that?


you know Im in a unique position, I use a Canon 5d Mk IV, I also use a Nikon d850 and a Sony A7R3. Each has its merits. Sorry to tell you but the Canon is the least used. 


I love Canon glass, and use a ton of it. but i would put the canon glass on the sony with an adapter before I would use it on the 5d. All I wanted to see was Canon release a Mirrorless camera with the same EF mount and great video. I would have sold the Sony and the 5D and bought the new one. Dont care about card slots, I shoot tethered.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Really? Do you care to expand on that?


Be careful not to deplete your stock of troll food…


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 26, 2018)

pgrillone said:


> you know Im in a unique position, I use a Canon 5d Mk IV, I also use a Nikon d850 and a Sony A7R3. Each has its merits. Sorry to tell you but the Canon is the least used.
> 
> 
> I love Canon glass, and use a ton of it. but i would put the canon glass on the sony with an adapter before I would use it on the 5d. All I wanted to see was Canon release a Mirrorless camera with the same EF mount and great video. I would have sold the Sony and the 5D and bought the new one. Dont care about card slots, I shoot tethered.



But the Sony is not a DSLR. Or did that pass you by?


----------



## pgrillone (Sep 26, 2018)

so is all you have to reply with are one liners? TROLL


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 26, 2018)

I suggest you re-read your original comment .


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 26, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> I don't believe you're up to date on the video quality achievable on mirrorless (and some DSLR) cameras.


You mentioned video "quality". So now you are knowledgeable on quality, too. Great. Which quality you are referring to? 
From both objective quality (i.e. conformance to requirements, etc.) and subjective quality (i.e. fitness for use, etc.) perspectives:
Every video recorded by a ML/DSLR is either great or crap, as evaluated by spec sheets warriors.
But in reality, every video recorded by any ML/DSLR is crap!!


----------



## canonmike (Sep 27, 2018)

Some good arguments. Personally, I'm looking fwd to actual hands on reviews once the R arrives in the stores and Canon users can take them out, shoot with them and give us their input about real world use. Shouldn't be much longer now.


----------



## sdz (Sep 27, 2018)

wickedac said:


> Talking about sensor performance on these current generation full frame bodies seems a little like the car magazines talking about which sub-4-second 0-60 supercar is faster. Like what's the difference really between 3.74 and 3.79 seconds 0-60? Driver skill will be a much bigger factor, but either way they're both fast as blazes! Same with these sensors. I have no wants with the 5DIV sensor-wise. 30 MP is insane resolution for me, having been using DSLR's since they were 4 MP. I have no desire for more. Same with dynamic range, etc. High ISO performance with these things is insane, you can pull shadows up like madness creating images in conditions we could only dream of image years ago. All this measure-bating is silly. Is the Sony sensor technically better on paper? A lot of people say so, so I who am I to argue? But more importantly who cares? _If you were racing down the track in a Koenigsegg CCR which you be upset that it wasn't as fast as a Bugatti Chiron? _(emphasis added)



Some would indeed be upset. "I paid.....for the best...., and expect the best....."

Owning a camera that routinely takes high quality photos is sometimes not enough. When that camera is not good enough, then attention should fall on the person for whom 'good enough' is not 'good enough.'


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'll point out that similar comments were made about the EOS M at launch – late to the party and underdressed, so to speak. Nevertheless, the original M was a major domestic success for Canon (#2 in sales at full price, behind only a 2-gen old, deeply discounted Sony NEX), and the M line went on to be globally successful.
> 
> I also think the RF / EF-M incompatiblity is an issue. But we should keep in mind that Canon has actual data that informed their decision, e.g. the fraction of APS-C DSLR users who bought EF lenses prior to buying a FF DSLR, etc., and so from their perspective it may have been a non-issue.



You really would have to define "domestic".
At release you couldn't even buy it in the US. 
There was speculation that the M would have bombed in the US and that is why it was released other places but not here.
The best move Canon made was to fire sale the original M at the end of sales cycle. It brought many reluctant buyers to the platform. 

It wasn't the greatest release, but Canon did turn it around later.

To the point you were making. There has been far more positive fanfare with the R release, the M was sad. Hopefully this is an indication of how well the R will actually do since the M is doing well now. The R has a far better start.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> You really would have to define "domestic".


I stated, "...domestic success for Canon." Canon is a Japanese company. What needs to be defined?


----------



## Cochese (Sep 27, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Not necessarily. Even the RED Super35 4-perf shoots with a sensor size (24.89 x 18.66mm) which is only a tad larger than the area that EOS R reads for 4K and definitely smaller than the FF (36x24mm).Those expensive video lenses all can only cover the Super35 sensor size not the FF. I have not heard any pro video producer saying that he/she cannot get a wide enough shot because his/her camera does not have or cannot read FF sensor!! I have never seen pro video producers operate the camera from the front, either.



Operate the camera from the front? 
Strictly speaking, I'm still referring to FF sensor having cameras and the ability to use the full wide angle lenses on them. Not people's personal and unreasonable expectations that all manufacturers must use the full sensor. 
This whole topic is a bit amusing when people discuss this being a deal breaker on the Canon. Some of those some people are ones who'll praise other cameras as being the best "vlogging" set up because "x" reason. Despite them being APS-C or smaller. Speaking of, that is probably what you're referring to as "from the front." 
We're not talking about people using a Red or the like. Strictly speaking, I'm not even referring to people in the professional fields on this one. Mainly Vloggers.


----------



## Cochese (Sep 27, 2018)

MayaTlab said:


> I'm not sure that I'd have picked these two as "innovative" features.
> - regarding the shutter : that will only be of value for a few years until mechanical shutters disappear altogether from our cameras (thanks to fast enough electronic shutters). So Canon will have, just like anyone else, to find ways to make the sensor's coverglass resistant to damage at some point. .



Fun fact: if canon were to ever feel the need to get rid of the shutters for actually taking the photo, they could still just as easily, if not more so, implement a shutter like guard within the camera that only works when the lens is off. Not sure why you think this feature has to be tied directly to it being the shutter. Especially if they believe it is the best way to keep it safe.


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2018)

pgrillone said:


> Totally agree, CANON isn't even on par with the current DLSR market, why would we expect them to all of a sudden stand up and be noticed in the mirrorless market.



Factually, that's just silly, because Canon isn't just "even on par with the current DSLR market", they're the undisputed king of the DSLR market. It isn't even close. But anyways, assuming that you actually mean that you think that Canon's _cameras_ aren't on par, and I presume you mean on features or design, there are only two possibilities: 

1. That Canon makes terrible, subpar cameras, but most camera buyers are so dumb that year after year, Canon is their overwhelming choice.

2. That year after year, consumers buy Canon cameras because of a combination of design priorities, featureset, value, and marketing.

It's ok that your feature and design priorities are different than mine. Just recognize that your priorities don't align with the market, and that Canon cares more about the market as a whole than you.


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2018)

Cochese said:


> Fun fact: if canon were to ever feel the need to get rid of the shutters for actually taking the photo, they could still just as easily, if not more so, implement a shutter like guard within the camera that only works when the lens is off. Not sure why you think this feature has to be tied directly to it being the shutter. Especially if they believe it is the best way to keep it safe.



A Sony product champion once told me that the sensors are very durable and unlikely to be damaged, in comparison with the shutters, which are quite fragile and very easy to damage. In the Sony cameras, they are serviced as a single unit, so if you damage one, you replace both, hence their decision to open the shutter during a lens swap.

It may be a logical way to minimize repairs but as a practical matter, I absolutely hate it. The shutter is exposed and so close to the lens mount that there is no protection to it from dust. The whole thing is a giant magnet for everything out there, lens swaps become the last thing on Earth I want to do when out in nature, especially somewhere with sand.


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 27, 2018)

Cochese said:


> Fun fact: if canon were to ever feel the need to get rid of the shutters for actually taking the photo, they could still just as easily, if not more so, implement a shutter like guard within the camera that only works when the lens is off. Not sure why you think this feature has to be tied directly to it being the shutter. Especially if they believe it is the best way to keep it safe.



Do you really think that Canon, the stingiest manufacturer of them all, would bother taking up valuable internal real estate place and incur additional manufacturing costs to do that ? 



Talys said:


> It may be a logical way to minimize repairs but as a practical matter, I absolutely hate it. The shutter is exposed and so close to the lens mount that there is no protection to it from dust. The whole thing is a giant magnet for everything out there, lens swaps become the last thing on Earth I want to do when out in nature, especially somewhere with sand.



I'm not sure but I believe that when Nikon evaluated the D600's dust issue they realised that most of the dust came from the parts inside the camera, not from outside. So to keep dust off a sensor, it seems that the first step is to care about the camera's engineering itself.
Besides, once dust is inside the camera, it has a chance to land on the sensor at some point anyway. 
The big particles aren't that worrying most of the time as the dust reduction mechanism can take care of it. It's more the smaller particles, that can remain attached via static that are a PITA. 
Personally I care less about whether the sensor or the shutter is exposed than about how the camera's mechanical parts, dust reduction mechanism and filter stacks are designed (for example, m43 cameras have a very thick filter stack, designed to keep the few dust particles the dust reduction mechanism can't take care of, far enough from the sensor to be a non-problem), and whether I can easily clean it or not (filter stack coating hardness for example). 

Canon must have very good reasons for having followed that path for now, but they're the only ones doing it, so it probably is a solution with significant trade-offs rather than something unequivocally better.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 27, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> You mentioned video "quality". So now you are knowledgeable on quality, too. Great. Which quality you are referring to?
> From both objective quality (i.e. conformance to requirements, etc.) and subjective quality (i.e. fitness for use, etc.) perspectives:
> Every video recorded by a ML/DSLR is either great or crap, as evaluated by spec sheets warriors.
> But in reality, every video recorded by any ML/DSLR is crap!!



Well, I think you’ve shown your bias against MILC/DSLR cameras so there’s no point trying to convince you otherwise or even answering your question.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 27, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> There was speculation that the M would have bombed in the US and that is why it was released other places but not here.
> The best move Canon made was to fire sale the original M at the end of sales cycle. It brought many reluctant buyers to the platform.
> 
> It wasn't the greatest release, but Canon did turn it around later.



It always surprises me how much negativity the M had. I loved my m, and got some wonderful images from it. Destroyed the Fuji x100 I had been using prior for image quality and AF accuracy and general performance. All pocketable with the 22mm. 

Yes, I got it in the fire sale, and may not have purchased otherwise - but it exceeded my expectations given the forum and net ranting about it. I also traded it in last year for an m5, and considering I kept the 22mm, got back most of what I spent on it. Unlike the much newer Sony a7s I also traded in. That one I did not love so much


----------



## JonSnow (Sep 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Funny how some people think a statement of relevant facts constitutes a diversion.
> 
> Just saying yes Canon delivers products with features and performance that the majority of buyers find desirable is not possible for some people.
> 
> ...



when the shoe fits..... exactly one of the persons i was talking about.

this is about canon and i am a canon user ... but hey... mentioning sony is a reflex from you guys.

and when they have no arguments for their idiocy they claim others trolls.

my points are valid there is no need for you to spend another 2 minutes of your life defending canon.


----------



## ThomsA (Sep 28, 2018)

Some interesting views from Mike Burnhill (Canon) today at photokina, Cologne: "This [Canon R] was really intended for photo enthusiasts, people who are passionate about taking photographs ... it's their passion and their hobby, but not their full time job."





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=330215011060335


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 28, 2018)

JonSnow said:


> when the shoe fits..... exactly one of the persons i was talking about.
> 
> this is about canon and i am a canon user ... but hey... mentioning sony is a reflex from you guys.
> 
> ...



I don't think there is a person on this forum who would not want Canon sensors to have the same capability as Sony sensors - IMO they would be dumb not to.
However, and this is the point you (and a few others) fail to understand, there is a world of difference between saying 'I want a better sensor from Canon' and extrapolating to say that Canon have not done it because they are incompetent, don't understand the camera market, don't know how to design sensors, or want to protect segmentation of their precious video cameras/1D/5D series. You will see that most criticism comes when they make those extrapolations

They also fail to understand that every company (even Canon, shock! horror!) has a limit to resources (fincancial and otherwise) on R&D so they need to agree priorities. And I think it is fair to say that Canon has done a damned good job in prioritising those areas that have people buying their gear no matter what shortfalls the naysayers think. 
Sony seem to think it is more important to put 1080p/120 instead of a useable touch screen, or full weathersealing, or good ergonomics or a host of other things. 
I would love a Sony sensor in a Canon body but Canon has a corporate decision to design their own sensors and I don't mind that compromise, and there seem to be a lot of others who agree.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2018)

JonSnow said:


> and when they have no arguments for their idiocy


I guess you're trying the shoe on for size. 

Try not to step in something foul then put your foot in your mouth (again).


----------



## JonSnow (Sep 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess you're trying the shoe on for size.
> 
> Try not to step in something foul then put your foot in your mouth (again).



you poor guy can´t help yourself.... 

try to write something on topic and intelligent for a change....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2018)

I've run out of troll food.


----------

