# Review: Canon EOS R by DPReview



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 20, 2018)

> DPReview has completed their review of the Canon EOS R, and we see they find the camera a mixed bag. It appears the reviewers greatest issues with the EOS R body is the ergonomics of the camera. The EOS R is nothing like anything else Canon has ever released in that regard.
> The camera definitely does take some getting used to, and we suspect a coming firmware update is going to add some features as well as fix some of the issues users are having.
> *From DPReview:*
> With a 30MP sensor, fantastic color reproduction and on-sensor autofocus, the EOS R can produce some beautiful photographs with pinpoint-accurate focus. But it’s Canon’s first mirrorless full-frame camera, and in many ways, it shows. The ergonomics feel unfinished, and for the same or less money, you can find better video, more dynamic range and faster burst speeds elsewhere. But we have to admit that Canon’s new RF lenses are simply spectacular, and at this time, the EOS R is the only way to get to use them...



Continue reading...


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 20, 2018)

If I compare the RAW image quality my cameras are better than the EOS R according to dpreview: SL-2 and M50. Really?
What a pity that I have no chance to compare it by myself.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 20, 2018)

It is not only ergonomics. 

No IBIS
Poor Servo-AF/tracking fps
Nerfed 4k video
Bigger than competition
AND more expensive than competition

Canon thought they could get by with a mirrorfree 6D III at a much higher price. It ain't so. Anti-Canon stance at dpreview is obvious, but low score well deserved in this case.


----------



## bhf3737 (Nov 20, 2018)

4fun said:


> It is not only ergonomics.
> 
> No IBIS
> Poor Servo-AF/tracking fps
> ...


As you are repeating again and again your same post in several threads I am going to repeat my month old post, too:
"Basically, EOS R can take comparable or a little better still pictures than 5D4. Has much better video spec than 5D4. Is smaller, lighter than 5D4 and has silent shutter. Doesn't need lens calibration. Comes with some interesting and innovative lenses. Can accurately focus in low and back-lit situations. Has a few interesting perks such as control ring, CPL/ND adapters and can shoot with both EF and EF-S lenses."
All the points are still true after a month of using the EOS-R camera and it is absolutely fun to shoot with it.


----------



## jebrady03 (Nov 20, 2018)

It's only people who bought one that are comparing it to a 5D Mark IV because they've been brainwashed by camera companies that the sensor MP count is what matters most. And, they're trying to convince themselves that they got a mirrorless 5D Mark IV for a lot less money.
Everyone else is comparing it to the 6D Mark II, A7III, and Z6, which is the proper comparison to make.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 20, 2018)

It is somewhat a marvel that different review sites have for years been rating Nikon and Sony's higher than Canon....yet, Canon, in the same time, has actually grown their share of the market.


----------



## cpreston (Nov 20, 2018)

The EOS R is the best photo camera for video that Canon has created. It also has more features than a 6D II. For Canon, it seems to be a pretty good evolution for a camera. The whining by people who have never used it seems bizarre. I just see a bunch of generally misinformed comparisons to Sony or Fujifilm. Will the next review of a Sony camera complain that the lenses lack a control wheel or DPAF that covers nearly the entirety of the sensor? With the lens control wheel, Canon has now offered a nearly stepless method of adjusting the aperture while filming video. I have yet to see that mentioned in a review.

My own annoyances with the camera have to do with customization options. For example, I wish I could change ISO without first being in a metering mode. I would like to be able to have manual focus assists available while the lens is set in AF. The touch bar has a fairly unintuitive menu for setting options and it is missing options that seem like they should be available. Even so, this appears to be more of a problem with Canon finally attempting to offer more modes and customization options and me wishing for more. It is a step in the right direction.


----------



## ritholtz (Nov 20, 2018)

Really surprised about score. Canon is making mirrorless cameras for some time. Canon got 79 score. Nikon released first mirror less camera and received 89 score. Is Nikon equipped with on sensor pdaf. 
Thanks


----------



## Talys (Nov 20, 2018)

4fun said:


> It is not only ergonomics.
> 
> No IBIS
> Poor Servo-AF/tracking fps
> ...


It's obviously not the camera for you. For me:

No IBIS - Don't care. On A7R3, it's a minimal improvement when used together with ILIS. It isn't ever a replacement for ILIS.
Servo tracking - Don't care. I always use fixed AF points.
4k video - Video? What's that?
Bigger than the competition - Thank freaking God. I hate Alpha and Z sizes, because they aren't sized right for bigger lenses. If I wanted a small camera, I'd use an APSC, which also has smaller lenses. 
More expensive than the competition - That just isn't true. It's more expensive than some mirrorless full frame cameras and cheaper than others. I think it's priced just right

Most importantly, it autofocuses much more quickly and with less light than all of the other competitors; not quite as well as a DSLR, but at least it's not painful.

Which really just brings it back full circle. There isn't a mirrorless yet, including EOS R, which quite accomplishes what a DSLR does for me... allows me to point at the kind of stuff I want to photograph and get a high keeper rate without getting in the way.


----------



## bhf3737 (Nov 20, 2018)

jebrady03 said:


> It's only people who bought one that are comparing it to a 5D Mark IV because they've been brainwashed by camera companies that the sensor MP count is what matters most. And, they're trying to convince themselves that they got a mirrorless 5D Mark IV for a lot less money.
> Everyone else is comparing it to the 6D Mark II, A7III, and Z6, which is the proper comparison to make.


Just the opposite. Those who have never got their hands on EOS-R and are brainwashed by mumble-jumble click-bait reviews believe that there are worthy products out there that can compete with it in the areas that matter most to actual photographers.


----------



## jViks (Nov 20, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Are you serious? This is like talking to a Trump supporter. You can say no things wrong with Canon and if it is wrong, it doesnt matter until it matters.


Then again, he did write "not for *you*, for *me*...*" *which shows he is not generalising for whole population, but showing why something that is a problem for one person might not be a problem for another.

From a landscape photog perspective:
- his IBIS and Servo tracking points are valid for the use case
- Bigger size is sometimes nice when you have a lot of glass in front of the camera, helps with grip in gloves, provides better balance, is great if you have larger hands.
- Video is not a feature everyone needs, for a lot of us it is a feature we never use
- For a 6DII "equivalent" the price is ok, but this will depend on the market - in my country, when it launched, the 6DII was sold at the same price as the R is sold now.

Speaking from experience, I never felt limited by the DR of my old 5DIII or current 5DIV, the prints are coming out just fine so no worries there. The R has some ergonomics limitations (missing joystick, bad use of space for only the power switch), but it does have some nice features too. If it had dual cards, and I was in the market for a new landscape camera, I would give it a go...

All in all, this might be a case of "we expected a higher-end camera with all the bells and whistles, and now we're pissed it didn't come right away", but I'm actually glad it didn't. This way, there's at least a chance they will gather some feedback and incorporate certain things into the high end body instead of having to wait 3-year update cycle...


----------



## twoheadedboy (Nov 20, 2018)

I'm so sick of the "no IBIS" whining. As mentioned above, it provides very little benefit. It's certainly not enough of a difference maker that would cause you to get an f/4 instead of an f/2.8 if you weren't already going to do that.


----------



## bwud (Nov 20, 2018)

Talys said:


> No IBIS - Don't care. On A7R3, it's a minimal improvement when used together with ILIS.



May I ask how you quantify this?

I only have one stabilized e mount lens (100-400), and I think when I disable IS either from the body or the lens, it turns off both systems, so I can’t compare on equal footing one vs the other.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Nov 20, 2018)

bwud said:


> May I ask how you quantify this?
> 
> I only have one stabilized e mount lens (100-400), and I think when I disable IS either from the body or the lens, it turns off both systems, so I can’t compare on equal footing one vs the other.



Use it it with a lens that doesn't have IS, compare results to handheld with IBIS off.


----------



## bwud (Nov 20, 2018)

twoheadedboy said:


> Use it it with a lens that doesn't have IS, compare results to handheld with IBIS off.



That doesn’t tell me what IBIS adds to a lens with IS, which is the negligible improvement Talys mentioned. This would demonstrate the effectiveness of IBIS alone.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 20, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> As you are repeating again and again your same post in several threads I am going to repeat my month old post, too:
> "Basically, EOS R can take comparable or a little better still pictures than 5D4. Has much better video spec than 5D4. Is smaller, lighter than 5D4 and has silent shutter. Doesn't need lens calibration. Comes with some interesting and innovative lenses. Can accurately focus in low and back-lit situations. Has a few interesting perks such as control ring, CPL/ND adapters and can shoot with both EF and EF-S lenses."
> All the points are still true after a month of using the EOS-R camera and it is absolutely fun to shoot with it.


He keeps changing his screen name to protect the guilty. AvTvM, Fullstop, and now 4fun.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 20, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Are you serious? This is like talking to a Trump supporter. You can say no things wrong with Canon and if it is wrong, it doesnt matter until it matters.



So, a person gives their own well thought out and articulated opinion and you feel you have the right to insult them based on nothing. Hmm, they have a word for that....TROLL.


----------



## criscokkat (Nov 20, 2018)

My 2 cents asto why Canon doesn't include IBIS: Money.

IBIS = every lens now has stabilization. Works almost as well as in lens IS when shooting static subjects to stabilize the camera shake of the photographer. Does not stabilize as well when trying to stabilize a panning shot, such as a moving car. 

In Lens = Heavier lens, but better sports and moving subject image stabilization options. If combined with IBIS you might achieve an extra 1/2 stop over either of them alone. 


My theory on why Canon doesn't have it simply comes down to money. Canon charges a premium for IS and gets it. If they build in IS, they will lose quite a bit of people willing to pay a premium for IS on non sports lenses (the IS version of the 70-200 will probably still sell if used for sports, the hand held portrait shooter might opt to use IBIS and buy the lower cost version).


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 20, 2018)

dak723 said:


> So, a person gives their own well thought out and articulated opinion and you feel you have the right to insult them based on nothing. Hmm, they have a word for that....TROLL.


Why people want to bring politics into every corner of life is beyond me. I had no idea Canon was political. Silly me.


----------



## BillB (Nov 20, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> He keeps changing his screen name to protect the guilty. AvTvM, Fullstop, and now 4fun.


Also Mirage


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 20, 2018)

On the other hand, video as well as stills are important to ME and I passed on buying an R, even though I have funds saved up for a new camera.
I think the R handles really well, its lenses are fantastic and the still image quality is fantastic, but the video is poor compared to the competition.
I saw a side by side comparison of the R's video compared to the Fuji XT-3m Nikon Z7, Sony A7 III etc., and the video is very soft in comparison.
Now I've been a Canon shooter since 1968 (when I got my first new Canon SLR), but I'm seriously considering something else for my next camera purchase unless Canon do something about their soft video quality.
I'm not interested in 4K so much, but even their 1080 is very soft, and I want an improvement in video from my 5D3, 70D and M5, which unfortunately the R doesn't do.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 20, 2018)

BillB said:


> Also Mirage


Oh yeah! So many I lose track.


----------



## bhf3737 (Nov 20, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Are you serious? This is like talking to a Trump supporter. You can say no things wrong with Canon and if it is wrong, it doesnt matter until it matters.


And your argument/evidence is?? ... Oh wait, I've seen someone talks/tweets like that ...


----------



## twoheadedboy (Nov 20, 2018)

bwud said:


> That doesn’t tell me what IBIS adds to a lens with IS, which is the negligible improvement Talys mentioned. This would demonstrate the effectiveness of IBIS alone.



You're really picking nits. Are you saying IBIS benefits lenses with their own IS MORE than IBIS with a non-IS lens? The point is IBIS does not stabilize an image as much as in-lens ID, whether alone or in conjunction. It's not the killer feature some believe it is, at least not as implemented in 2018.


----------



## bhf3737 (Nov 20, 2018)

Bennymiata said:


> On the other hand, video as well as stills are important to ME and I passed on buying an R, even though I have funds saved up for a new camera.
> I think the R handles really well, its lenses are fantastic and the still image quality is fantastic, but the video is poor compared to the competition.
> I saw a side by side comparison of the R's video compared to the Fuji XT-3m Nikon Z7, Sony A7 III etc., and the video is very soft in comparison.
> Now I've been a Canon shooter since 1968 (when I got my first new Canon SLR), but I'm seriously considering something else for my next camera purchase unless Canon do something about their soft video quality.
> I'm not interested in 4K so much, but even their 1080 is very soft, and I want an improvement in video from my 5D3, 70D and M5, which unfortunately the R doesn't do.


EOS-R video is by no means perfect. For example, having zebras or histogram when shooting will be helpful add-ons. If you are referring to Max Yuryev's video about side-by-side comparison, there is another video by Justin Reves here that may remove some of the doubts about softness of video through side-by-side experimentation. It argues that setting "sharpness" of video to something greater than the default zero could make it look much better (conclusions are from around 8:30). I've tested it and it myself and it seems to be a good recommendation.


----------



## 3dit0r (Nov 20, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> As you are repeating again and again your same post in several threads I am going to repeat my month old post, too:
> "Basically, EOS R can take comparable or a little better still pictures than 5D4. Has much better video spec than 5D4. Is smaller, lighter than 5D4 and has silent shutter. Doesn't need lens calibration. Comes with some interesting and innovative lenses. Can accurately focus in low and back-lit situations. Has a few interesting perks such as control ring, CPL/ND adapters and can shoot with both EF and EF-S lenses."
> All the points are still true after a month of using the EOS-R camera and it is absolutely fun to shoot with it.



I’ve been considering the EOS-R against the Sony and Nikon mirrorless competition. The Canon got so bashed online I didn’t expect much. Until I went into a shop recently and used it (I was lucky the actual Canon rep was there). I was really surprised how much I fell for it immediately. E.g., for me, considerably better basic ergonomics than other mirrorless - finally a grip ordinary sized hands don’t lose the little finger on! The more I tried it out and set it up to my liking with the rep’s help, the more impressed I was.

Then I looked more seriously into the system and found the same as posted above. For me, instantly in the store, the Eye-AF worked a treat also. The new lenses coming and seamless adaptation of probably the best fleshed out, and some of the finest, selection of lenses on the market made the decision final. I’ll be getting one.

Is it perfect? Of course not. Do I wish Canon had done some things differently? Of course I do. Will either of those factors stop me buying and enjoying one? No. Do I think it deserves the bashing it’s had from so many reviewers? Hell no. Far too many people these days only comparing this spec to that and not picking a camera up and working out whether it’ll be great in actual, practical everyday use, and looking at the overall system rather than just a body, in my opinion.

To anyone who’s dismissing the EOS-R out of hand based on online reviews, don’t knock it until you’ve at least picked it up, and set it up to your liking, you might be as surprised as I was.


----------



## 3dit0r (Nov 20, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> EOS-R video is by no means perfect. For example, having zebras or histogram when shooting will be helpful add-ons. If you are referring to Max Yuryev's video about side-by-side comparison, there is another video by Justin Reves here that may remove some of the doubts about softness of video through side-by-side experimentation. It argues that setting "sharpness" of video to something greater than the default zero could make it look much better (conclusions are from around 8:30). I've tested it and it myself and it seems to be a good recommendation.



Yeah the Max Yureyev video makes it look much worse than it actually is. I don’t think the test was as controlled as it could have been, and we generally shoot people in relative closeup using video, not heavily blown up areas of parking lot. Often we’re using glimmer glass, or similar, to take down the over-sharpness of 4K on subject’s faces with digital, I think Canon just gets that you’re not going to be shooting distant fine detail a lot, or consider it that important. What they have got right is colour science and actual, usable, video AF, which can be great if you’re operating alone especially on a gimbal.

The crop isn’t ideal though, but S35 would be fine, especially if they came out with a couple of decent fast zooms in native Canon mount à la Sigma 18-35 & 50-100 1.8.


----------



## David Hull (Nov 20, 2018)

jebrady03 said:


> It's only people who bought one that are comparing it to a 5D Mark IV because they've been brainwashed by camera companies that the sensor MP count is what matters most. And, they're trying to convince themselves that they got a mirrorless 5D Mark IV for a lot less money.
> Everyone else is comparing it to the 6D Mark II, A7III, and Z6, which is the proper comparison to make.


Mine replaced an EOS 5DIII and did it rather well. I am quite happy with it. It uses all of my existing lenses very effectively which the A7III and the Z6 will not do.


----------



## BillB (Nov 21, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> Yeah the Max Yureyev video makes it look much worse than it actually is. I don’t think the test was as controlled as it could have been, and we generally shoot people in relative closeup using video, not heavily blown up areas of parking lot. Often we’re using glimmer glass, or similar, to take down the over-sharpness of 4K on subject’s faces with digital, I think Canon just gets that you’re not going to be shooting distant fine detail a lot, or consider it that important. What they have got right is colour science and actual, usable, video AF, which can be great if you’re operating alone especially on a gimbal.
> 
> The crop isn’t ideal though, but S35 would be fine, especially if they came out with a couple of decent fast zooms in native Canon mount à la Sigma 18-35 & 50-100 1.8.


Adjusting the sharpness, eh? Makes you wonder why the reviewers didn't think of that before they started bashing Canon for soft video. Nice of them to hang it all out there for everybody to see. Of course, it is all Canon's fault for improperly setting the default in the first place


----------



## bokehmon22 (Nov 21, 2018)

4fun said:


> It is not only ergonomics.
> 
> No IBIS
> Poor Servo-AF/tracking fps
> ...



IBIS usually more useful for video. Long exposure longer than 1 second long or bracketing, I still have to use tripod. 
Nerf 4K, I don't really care. I know plenty of professional videographers using C200, 5D IV. I'm not a professional videographers so 4K crop isn't an issue for me.

Bigger is a good thing for my big lens. Canon, Nikon, Panasonic all have bigger body than Sony.

It's more expensive but it's cheaper than switching to Sony. EF lens performance works as well as native. You do save alot of money on lens.

Having the option of upgrading to A7RIII/A7III, I stay with Canon EOS R. I simply enjoy it more - ergonomic, EVF, fully articulating LCD, ergonomic, fully touch screen. I gave someone on vacation my EOS R to take my picture, and told them to touch to focus and take a picture and they were delighted how simple it is. I also paired with my smart phone for wireless shooting. 

This camera is promising because they offered alot of things that I value but fail short on some thing like dual card slot and poor eyeAF. Once that get resolve, this paired with some EF/RF lens and it will be a beast.


----------



## bwud (Nov 21, 2018)

twoheadedboy said:


> You're really picking nits. Are you saying IBIS benefits lenses with their own IS MORE than IBIS with a non-IS lens? The point is IBIS does not stabilize an image as much as in-lens ID, whether alone or in conjunction. It's not the killer feature some believe it is, at least not as implemented in 2018.


I thought my post was pretty clear

I’m not saying anything of the sort, I’m asking a question.

It is routinely stated that on platforms like Sony’s the dual IS systems are designed to work together, and that in lens plus in body is better than in lens or in body on such platforms. The post I quoted comes from someone whose opinions I have learned to take seriously, as they generally have experiential basis, hence I’m curious on which he bases this one.

I struggle to see how you confuse a question such as “how did you figure that out” with some sort of implied contrary statement of fact.


----------



## padam (Nov 21, 2018)

twoheadedboy said:


> I'm so sick of the "no IBIS" whining. As mentioned above, it provides very little benefit. It's certainly not enough of a difference maker that would cause you to get an f/4 instead of an f/2.8 if you weren't already going to do that.


That's quite a funny statement, because it is _exactly _why it is a huge feature, even if it only offers a single stop of improvement, it opens up possibilities to use much smaller (cheaper) lenses or use EF/RF lenses where they left out the IS for maximising optical quality. The size advantage of these mirrorless cameras is way greater with a prime lens, but there aren't many which are fast and stabilised. Silent operation is another big thing, but without any kind of stabilization, the rolling shutter can ruin way more shots.

Again I think the EOS R is a fine camera, and when they come out with IBIS they will charge more money for it of course.
It is just the pricing that is upsetting, in Japan it is already close to 1800$ (incl. the 8% consumption tax) which is where it should be.
It was the same with the 6D Mark II as well, fine camera, just not worth anywhere close to 2000$.
The EOS R looks a bit less overpriced in comparison, and also the novelty factor is much stronger with this one, so I guess they can shift a decent amount around 2300$ (they can start to throw in a free adapter later on, etc.) and the supposedly lower-end follow-up model will allow them to keep it where it's at.


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 21, 2018)

Thanks for that link bhf4747.
Goes to show that so many web reviewers couldn't be bothered to set up cameras to give the best results, and so they don't really care about being honest - just bash Canon.


----------



## Mark3794 (Nov 21, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> Yeah the Max Yureyev video makes it look much worse than it actually is. I don’t think the test was as controlled as it could have been, and we generally shoot people in relative closeup using video, not heavily blown up areas of parking lot. Often we’re using glimmer glass, or similar, to take down the over-sharpness of 4K on subject’s faces with digital, I think Canon just gets that you’re not going to be shooting distant fine detail a lot, or consider it that important. What they have got right is colour science and actual, usable, video AF, which can be great if you’re operating alone especially on a gimbal.
> 
> The crop isn’t ideal though, but S35 would be fine, especially if they came out with a couple of decent fast zooms in native Canon mount à la Sigma 18-35 & 50-100 1.8.



Yeah no way the EOS R is so soft in video, i've seen other comparison and the sharpness is almost on par with the A7III. Probably he didn't notice he had digital IS on, and that feature crops the image a lot.


----------



## zonoskar (Nov 21, 2018)

I had good hopes for this review. Their "5 ways to improve articles" for the Canon were mostly related to ergonomics that are probably very personal. The 5 ways to improve the Nikon Z7 were all the AF. I think having a camera that can AF is way more useful than a camera the you have to get used to (ergonomically). So the score of the EOS-R is way too low if you ask me (I have not handled the camera myself). The AF tests for the EOS-R seem to indicate it works well, DR is a bit less than Sony, but we knew that, but image quality seems very good. So why the low score? The explanation they give almost sounds like BS to me.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 21, 2018)

jebrady03 said:


> It's only people who bought one that are comparing it to a 5D Mark IV because they've been brainwashed by camera companies that the sensor MP count is what matters most. And, they're trying to convince themselves that they got a mirrorless 5D Mark IV for a lot less money.
> Everyone else is comparing it to the 6D Mark II, A7III, and Z6, which is the proper comparison to make.



This isn't aimed at you, but it is interesting to note that those people who _were_ reducing cameras to the sensor in order to criticise Canon not long ago are now suddenly all about the whole system... in order to criticise Canon. Reasonable criticism is fine of course, but it's interesting to see the goalposts moved to maintain a position


----------



## scyrene (Nov 21, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> He keeps changing his screen name to protect the guilty. AvTvM, Fullstop, and now 4fun.



It is incredibly boring.


----------



## Ecto-1 (Nov 21, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> My 2 cents asto why Canon doesn't include IBIS: Money.
> 
> IBIS = every lens now has stabilization. Works almost as well as in lens IS when shooting static subjects to stabilize the camera shake of the photographer. Does not stabilize as well when trying to stabilize a panning shot, such as a moving car.
> 
> ...



The new RF 50 1.2 doesn't though, nor does the new RF 28-70 f/2.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Nov 21, 2018)

padam said:


> That's quite a funny statement, because it is _exactly _why it is a huge feature, even if it only offers a single stop of improvement, it opens up possibilities to use much smaller (cheaper) lenses or use EF/RF lenses where they left out the IS for maximising optical quality. The size advantage of these mirrorless cameras is way greater with a prime lens, but there aren't many which are fast and stabilised. Silent operation is another big thing, but without any kind of stabilization, the rolling shutter can ruin way more shots.
> 
> Again I think the EOS R is a fine camera, and when they come out with IBIS they will charge more money for it of course.
> It is just the pricing that is upsetting, in Japan it is already close to 1800$ (incl. the 8% consumption tax) which is where it should be.
> ...



I just don't see 1 stop as a big deal when high ISO's are handled so well (not specific to this camera) as compared to film, and if they are, your application is demanding enough to rent or buy a better lens with 3 - 5 stops of IS improvement for the job.


----------



## Uneternal (Nov 21, 2018)

For me its pretty obvious that Canon was in a hurry. Another rumor last year said there were 2 teams working on different cameras. I suppose one team was meant to use existing technology put it in a slightly smaller housing and make a camera that could be released before Christmas. While the other team is still working on the flagship thats supposed to be released next year. This flagship will probably finally include a newer and better sensor.

No matter what Dpreview wrote, the EOS R is clearly a step forward for Canon semi-pro users. And that's what its meant to be. And its the same like with every generation, you're forced to choose between "do I buy the older higher model or the newer lower model which is almost the same". 

The EOS R will face the same fate as the 6D2. After a few months its price will drop and it will sell like hotcakes. And some people will call it the best vlogging camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 21, 2018)

padam said:


> The size advantage of these mirrorless cameras is way greater with a prime lens



Really?


----------



## criscokkat (Nov 21, 2018)

Ecto-1 said:


> The new RF 50 1.2 doesn't though, nor does the new RF 28-70 f/2.


Holy cow. For the life of me I thought they did and in my mind I just chalked it up to "they make more on lenses that way".

I know the last few newly released primes on ef did, like the new 85mm 1/4 or the fact that they didn't release unstabilized 70-200 f2.8/f4 lenses. 

Who knows, maybe there will be a ibis sensor in the future then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am an 80d shooter of kids action sports. I know the R is not yet in my future as I like having the faster fps, and I haven't sprung for a 7dMkII because the 80d seems good enough. I would use ibis if I could because in fall and indoors I tend to fall back on ef-s 85mm because of light levels.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 21, 2018)

David Hull said:


> Mine replaced an EOS 5DIII and did it rather well. I am quite happy with it. It uses all of my existing lenses very effectively which the A7III and the Z6 will not do.



I'm looking at the EOSR.....I too have a 5D3...still working great, but I"m looking to move it to 2nd camera in the near future....so, I'm quite interested in hearing your opinions....where does it excel on the 5D, where is it equal and does it do anything less than the 5D3?

Thank you in advance,

cayenne


----------



## David Hull (Nov 21, 2018)

cayenne said:


> I'm looking at the EOSR.....I too have a 5D3...still working great, but I"m looking to move it to 2nd camera in the near future....so, I'm quite interested in hearing your opinions....where does it excel on the 5D, where is it equal and does it do anything less than the 5D3?
> 
> Thank you in advance,
> 
> cayenne


Well, first the easy stuff: it is a bit lighter and a bit smaller but not by a lot. The grip is the same so for me who also shoots an M5, this was refreshing because the M5 is a bit small into hold comfortably.

The AF is as good (or maybe a bit better) in single shot mode (which is what I use most often). A lot more AF coverage (covers the whole frame). It is harder on batteries so you might want to pick up an extra one. Image quality is about the same but you will notice a bit more crispness in the shots because of the additional resolution. The menu system is about the same but the controls will take a bit of getting used to -- I didn't find that to bad but I also have the M5 so I was used to the touch screen. All in all the camera is quite easy and fun to use, once you get the hang of it.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 21, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> Holy cow. For the life of me I thought they did and in my mind I just chalked it up to "they make more on lenses that way".



The two RF lenses referred to are especially wide aperture for their respective categories (standard prime and standard zoom). Until IBIS became the buzzword recently, people accepted/understood that wider aperture meant you could use faster shutter speeds/lower ISO because they could let in more light. Naturally every extra stop helps, whether aperture, stabilisation, or cleaner high ISO, but a lot of people seem to have forgotten that wide aperture only started going hand in hand with optical stabilisation very recently (either via IBIS or ILIS on lenses like the EF 85L f/1.4). While I don't doubt there are valid use cases for it (no flash/no tripod dim interiors - events, museums, parties, etc) I think the importance of IBIS in wide aperture, wide-standard angle lenses has been overstated by spec sheet fanatics.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Nov 21, 2018)

I think the review was fair. Overall, I didn't really expect this camera to receive glowing reviews as it does lag behind the competition (quite substantially in a few areas). The review states that since most modern cameras are competent in capturing photos/videos, it becomes more about comparing how it takes those photos/videos that makes the most sense to compare against. Although many die-hard still shooters do not necessarily agree with current review methodologies, video acquisition is a large component of mainstream reviews become it is a feature that has become as ubiquitous as rear-view cameras. I think this is one area where the EOS R takes the biggest hit. 

To be honest, this is Canon's first "real" foray into FF MILC at a prosumer level. As I mentioned before, I feel existing Canon shooters would be better served sticking with their current EF investment until Canon turns around a real EOS R flagship next year which would really allow RF lenses to shine in both stills and video.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Nov 21, 2018)

4fun said:


> It is not only ergonomics.
> Anti-Canon stance at dpreview is obvious, but low score well deserved in this case.


I'm not sure that's true. I think it's just the case that other brands have been releasing more compelling products over the past few years. The 5DIV, 6DII, M50 and EOS R have all had major drawbacks when compared with similarly priced cameras. All are okay cameras but the lack of features for the price is something that can't be ignored. The 5DIV is D850/A7RIII money, the 6DII is A7III money and so on. Again, okay cameras but definitely not competitive.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 21, 2018)

EOS M50 had and has zero drawbacks compared to any other 500 €/$ camera on this planet. Quite the opposite. it bests its only direct competitor - Fuji XT100 - nicely. it is a more capable camera than EOS M5 at a lower price. Not to mention Sony A6500 at absurd prices way beyond a grand or puny, dwarf-sensored mFT Oly somethings. That's why M50 is such a resounding success for Canon. No decent black friday deals on M50 or EF-M 18-150. 

EOS 6D II at MSRP is a total turd. That's why it is available now as Black Friday overstocked firesale deal for $ 949 including battery grip and various other Canon stuff/printer.

5D IV is ok-ish, but too high priced for only marginal improvements/ advantages over 5D 3. That's why only limited number of people are upgrading/buying it. and hesitation to buy yet another mirrorslapper iteration, when new mirrorfree EOS R system has finally arrived.

facts, quite evident.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 21, 2018)

David Hull said:


> Well, first the easy stuff: it is a bit lighter and a bit smaller but not by a lot. The grip is the same so for me who also shoots an M5, this was refreshing because the M5 is a bit small into hold comfortably.
> 
> The AF is as good (or maybe a bit better) in single shot mode (which is what I use most often). A lot more AF coverage (covers the whole frame). It is harder on batteries so you might want to pick up an extra one. Image quality is about the same but you will notice a bit more crispness in the shots because of the additional resolution. The menu system is about the same but the controls will take a bit of getting used to -- I didn't find that to bad but I also have the M5 so I was used to the touch screen. All in all the camera is quite easy and fun to use, once you get the hang of it.


 Ok thank you!!

Hmm...I need to research it more...and maybe see if I can find somewhere to physically hold one....
I had read something about having to go through a menu system to change things like ISO, rather than just be able to hit buttons on the outside and quickly change things like ISO, white balance, etc like on my 5D3.

Hmm...can you quickly change shutter speed and aperture with external controls (wheels) like you can with the 5D3? 

If not, I'm guessing this wouldn't work with me and one of the things I really like is NOT having to stop, go through the menu system for basic changes like this....

Again, I know...need to research this a bit more.....

C


----------



## Bentley Boy (Nov 21, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I'm not sure that's true. I think it's just the case that other brands have been releasing more compelling products over the past few years. The 5DIV, 6DII, M50 and EOS R have all had major drawbacks when compared with similarly priced cameras. All are okay cameras but the lack of features for the price is something that can't be ignored. The 5DIV is D850/A7RIII money, the 6DII is A7III money and so on. Again, okay cameras but definitely not competitive.



While I agree the 5dIV does not compare well to the D850, and 6DII was just a mistake, please share how the M50 and R are inferior to their competition, while also naming their competition. I've done a lot of research on these cameras, and watched too many videos and read too many reviews, but I say each has as many if not more advantages as disadvantages over the competition......in the real world most of all.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 21, 2018)

Bentley Boy said:


> While I agree the 5dIV does not compare well to the D850, and 6DII was just a mistake, please share how the M50 and R are inferior to their competition, while also naming their competition. I've done a lot of research on these cameras, and watched too many videos and read too many reviews, but I say each has as many if not more advantages as disadvantages over the competition......in the real world most of all.



EOS R as camera (not as system) is inferior to Nikon Z6. Not by much, but still. 
M50 rulez supreme over any other ILC south of 1 grand.


----------



## BillB (Nov 21, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Ok thank you!!
> 
> Hmm...I need to research it more...and maybe see if I can find somewhere to physically hold one....
> I had read something about having to go through a menu system to change things like ISO, rather than just be able to hit buttons on the outside and quickly change things like ISO, white balance, etc like on my 5D3.
> ...


I think you are going to have to try it to see whether you are comfortable with the touchscreen interface. I love it.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 21, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> As you are repeating again and again your same post in several threads I am going to repeat my month old post, too:
> "Basically, EOS R can take comparable or a little better still pictures than 5D4. Has much better video spec than 5D4. Is smaller, lighter than 5D4 and has silent shutter. Doesn't need lens calibration. Comes with some interesting and innovative lenses. Can accurately focus in low and back-lit situations. Has a few interesting perks such as control ring, CPL/ND adapters and can shoot with both EF and EF-S lenses."
> All the points are still true after a month of using the EOS-R camera and it is absolutely fun to shoot with it.


This reminds me so much of the 6D2. The spec warriors panned it, yet everyone who bought one loved it.


----------



## BillB (Nov 21, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> This reminds me so much of the 6D2. The spec warriors panned it, yet everyone who bought one loved it.


Deja vu all over again.


----------



## olympus593 (Nov 22, 2018)

Another review with excessive focus on specs. I've seen more than a dozen and not a single one gives details about the new exposure mode, Fv. As someone who loves Magic Lantern due to Exposure Presets (among other features), this mode sounds promising, but the reviews at the most just quote Canon press release information about it.


----------



## padam (Nov 22, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Really?


The EVF sticks out much further on the EOS R so it is misleading. Oh, and let's see the front as well


----------



## padam (Nov 22, 2018)

twoheadedboy said:


> I just don't see 1 stop as a big deal when high ISO's are handled so well (not specific to this camera) as compared to film, and if they are, your application is demanding enough to rent or buy a better lens with 3 - 5 stops of IS improvement for the job.


Again, it was only pitched as an example, the real world improvement should be at least 3 stops. And again, those nice (or cheap and cheerful) lenses that don't come with IS should not be dismissed because of this.
After they do come out with sensor-based stabilisation and other improvements, the value of the first ones will go down the drain.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 22, 2018)

For stills, specs are fine. I'm not a video shooter, but I can see why there is some bashing about the 1.8x 4k crop--if people were unhappy three years ago about the crop on the 5D IV, naturally most consumers expect technological advances in a new release, especially an otherwise groundbreaking product.

It was the ergonomics as reported in early hands-on reports that kept me from buying this. I haven't read a single positive comment in any review about that multi-function bar or strip. As for selecting AF points, I'm glad that some users here are happy with the touch-screen controls, but I'm hoping for better on the next RF release.

This clearly wasn't designed as a primary camera for professional photographers, so it's a bit unfair to review it as if it were.


----------



## David Hull (Nov 22, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Ok thank you!!
> 
> Hmm...I need to research it more...and maybe see if I can find somewhere to physically hold one....
> I had read something about having to go through a menu system to change things like ISO, rather than just be able to hit buttons on the outside and quickly change things like ISO, white balance, etc like on my 5D3.
> ...


The UI is definitely different. For ISO, WB, and others, you press the M-Fn button above the shutter release. This brings up a series of options on the top display that can be selected using the "Mode Dial" once you have selected the one you want (ISO for example), you adjust that with the front dial (behind the shutter release on the top of the camera). Alternatively, you press the "Q" button on the back of the camera and change these things from the touch screen.

The Mode dial and the front dial work Aperture and Shutter Speed when in manual (for example). In Av the front dial works Aperture, in Tv it works SS.

The thing works like you would expect (once you get used to it). You can also assign things like ISO to the front ring on the RF lenses or to the ring on the adapter so you have another dial to work with.

Find one and play with it -- is the best thing. Most camera stores have them by now if you are near a dealer.

Good luck.


----------



## David Hull (Nov 22, 2018)

4fun said:


> EOS M50 had and has zero drawbacks compared to any other 500 €/$ camera on this planet. Quite the opposite. it bests its only direct competitor - Fuji XT100 - nicely. it is a more capable camera than EOS M5 at a lower price. Not to mention Sony A6500 at absurd prices way beyond a grand or puny, dwarf-sensored mFT Oly somethings. That's why M50 is such a resounding success for Canon. No decent black friday deals on M50 or EF-M 18-150.
> 
> EOS 6D II at MSRP is a total turd. That's why it is available now as Black Friday overstocked firesale deal for $ 949 including battery grip and various other Canon stuff/printer.
> 
> ...


How is the M50 a more capable camera than the M5 (just curious)? I don't own an M50 but do own an M5 which I have done a lot of good work with.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> This clearly wasn't designed as a primary camera for professional photographers, so it's a bit unfair to review it as if it were.


There's a fair bit of that going around.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 22, 2018)

David Hull said:


> How is the M50 a more capable camera than the M5 (just curious)?



good factual specs comparison here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=24445

or here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/canon-eos-m5-vs-m50/

for me main advantage of M50 vs M5/M6 is the better AF system. More AF points over more of the frame and well-working Eye Detect/Tracking AF thanks to more processing power (Digic 8).

i dont really mention 4k video in M50 (nerfed in various ways) since i am never recording video and dont have the slightest interest doing so - i would really prefer a "pure stills" version of any camera.

Useful also for stills - especially in tripod use - is the "really-right, fully articulated" screen on M50 (vs. M5's downward tilt-flip which is the worst of all possible implementations seen so far).

Best of all: M50 brings all of the goodness in a noticably smaller/lighter body at a really decent price.

Only downside of M50 is due to Canon's decision to marketing-nerf it by using the old, whimpy LP-E12 battery (as in the very 1st gen EOS M!) vs. M5/M6 using a newer, higher capacity and only slightly larger LP-E17 (yes, it could have been fit inside the M50 body size-wise, it's less than 1mm thicker).

M5 sales must have really stalled ever since the M50 appeared. There are massive discounts / special offers for M5 available, sometimes even below M50 price these days. I'd still take M50.

Since its launch M50 plus EF-M lens lineup (much hated by many review sites and snobbish mirrorslapper owners with EF L and Zeiss glass) deliver maximum bang for buck of any mirrorless crop-sensor system (for stills) in the entire market and it has not been surpassed to this day. Unfortunately it took Canon almost 10 years and 5 generations of cameras until they finally came up with it.

let's hope, they will be quicker with EOS R system. I really would like to get an FF-sensored "EOS R50" and some matching, compact, decent and well-affordable RF lenses with it rather than f/1.2 primes and f/2 zooms without IS.

Today!


----------



## 4fun (Nov 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> This clearly wasn't designed as a primary camera for professional photographers, so it's a bit unfair to review it as if it were.



Not unfair. Canon has not made this NOT clear. Entirely their fault. They chose to bring a "mirrorfree 6D III" with an old, re-used sensor, weirdo UI, severley nerfed 4k video, pedestrian fps/AF tracking and no IBIS ... at a price tag much higher than 6D-class cameras and also higher than better-specced competitive products (A7 III, Z6). Furthermore, Canon did not communicate their product strategy re. DSLRs and EOS R line at all. Would they publish a clear roadmap, where everbody interested can not only see for when different products are scheduled but also what market segment they are targeted at. In light of those decisions and their refusal to communicate, Canon has fully deserved the flak they are getting for this.

That said: no, EOS R ain't all bad. Yes, it can be used also by pro's and semi-pro's ... and it is. BUT ... for its price tag and for a late 2018 FF MILC it is underspecced. Or other way round: for its specs it is overpriced.

At say USD / € 1799 it would have been clearly positioned ["6D class"], could not be criticized as much given lower price than higher specced competitor models and - most importantly it would be selling like hotcakes - provided there were also a few decent, affordable RF lenses around, not mainly "super-premium pink unicorns". Eg. Non-L lenses like a RF 24-85/4.0 IS STM at € 599 and an RF 50/1.8 at € 199 ... but Canon believes they can go "all premium price" for anything FF. ofc they can, but they bear the consequences: much lower unit volume and they will have to live with fully justified criticism if their premium-priced products are not fully on par with in terms of specs and/or performance and functionality.


----------



## David Hull (Nov 22, 2018)

4fun said:


> good factual specs comparison here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=24445
> 
> or here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/canon-eos-m5-vs-m50/
> 
> ...


Thanks.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 22, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> My 2 cents asto why Canon doesn't include IBIS: Money.
> 
> IBIS = every lens now has stabilization. Works almost as well as in lens IS when shooting static subjects to stabilize the camera shake of the photographer. Does not stabilize as well when trying to stabilize a panning shot, such as a moving car.
> 
> ...



There are many reasons for not having IBIS just as there are reasons for having it. IBIS is not the Holy Grail many make it out to be. BTW: IS is not a big deal on sports lenses like the 70-200 when used for sports. In fact, best to have IS off in that case. It is when used as a portrait lens and for other static subjects that IS is important. Same with IBIS. In my experience IBIS works well at short focal lengths. Get out to 400mm? Not good.

*"And Now Panasonic Explains What’s Not so Good with IBIS..."*


https://www.fujirumors.com/now-pana...is-looking-forward-fujifilm-x-h1-ibis-anyway/

"At the end, OIS or IBIS, if you really want the ultimate and very best image quality possible, then any form of in camera or lens stabilisation has to be avoided whenever possible."


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 22, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> There are many reasons for not having IBIS just as there are reasons for having it. IBIS is not the Holy Grail many make it out to be. BTW: IS is not a big deal on sports lenses like the 70-200 when used for sports. In fact, best to have IS off in that case. It is when used as a portrait lens and for other static subjects that IS is important. Same with IBIS. In my experience IBIS works well at short focal lengths. Get out to 400mm? Not good.
> 
> *"And Now Panasonic Explains What’s Not so Good with IBIS..."*
> 
> ...


Thought provoking link. But I'd still like IBIS for primes and zooms in the 24-135mm range. IS improves IQ significantly when it virtually eliminates camera shake--in many shooting situations. 

If it's technologically feasible, the engineers will sort it.

As for IS on the 70 to 200 or the 100 to 400, action photography isn't purely 100% fluid motion in bright light. Certainly IS helps reduce camera shake in many situations beyond portrait photography. Of course it can't stop subject blur, but it can help prevent a combination of subject blur and camera shake. Consider panning mode on Canon supertelephoto lenses.

In some situations, you are right, it doesn't help. But it is another nice tool to have in the kit bag.

Frankly I am surprised that in 2018 image stabilization is still a controversial topic!


----------



## 4fun (Nov 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Frankly I am surprised that in 2018 image stabilization is still a controversial topic!



exactly! 

It is not "the one or the other" any longer in late 2018. IBIS and IS complement each other. Actually IBIS should be the base line in every camera, so we get some degree of stabilization even when using non-IS lenses. Of course with a switch so users can turn it off whenever desired. 

There is no valid reason why IBIS should not be in every camera in late 2018. By now all "innovative manufacturers" have figured out how to make IBIS and in-lens stabilization (if present) work together for even better effect. In terms of cost/economics I just say: if they can put (4k) video capture into each and every camera body, IBIS should go in even more so, since it is a lot more useful for the majority of stills shooters who buy all these cameras.


----------



## Talys (Nov 22, 2018)

4fun said:


> exactly!
> 
> It is not "the one or the other" any longer in late 2018. IBIS and IS complement each other. Actually IBIS should be the base line in every camera, so we get some degree of stabilization even when using non-IS lenses. Of course with a switch so users can turn it off whenever desired.
> 
> There is no valid reason why IBIS should not be in every camera in late 2018. By now all "innovative manufacturers" have figured out how to make IBIS and in-lens stabilization (if present) work together for even better effect. In terms of cost/economics I just say: if they can put (4k) video capture into each and every camera body, IBIS should go in even more so, since it is a lot more useful for the majority of stills shooters who buy all these cameras.


Try to use an 85mm lens at a lower shutter speed on a Sony with:

1. All image stabilization off
2. Just IBIS
3. Just in-lens IS.
4. Both in-lens and in-body image stabilization on

The first 2 are quite similar and so are the last two. 

This is why IBIS doesn't really excite me. Yes, it's a nice extra bonus. But it's for me, it's like the difference between 9fps and 11 fps and 14 fps. or 11 and 13 steps of DR. In real terms, in 2018-2019, you need to decide whether IBIS is more important to you or DPAF. You can't have both.

Anyways, at the end of the day, if you're getting blurry images, increase your shutter speed.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> Try to use an 85mm lens at a lower shutter speed on a Sony with:
> 
> 1. All image stabilization off
> 2. Just IBIS
> ...



we should not have to make this choice. i'd rather want to choose between IBIS and video capture. 
DPAF does not preclude IBIS technically. And poor implementation in some Sony camera should not be indicative for what innovative Canon could do. ;-)

even if IBIS only yields 1 stop, it would be very welcome in difficult situations, when faster shutter speed means higher ISO and its cranjed up to 3200 or 6400 already.

again, no valid excuse for not including IBIS in Canon cameras.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> Try to use an 85mm lens at a lower shutter speed on a Sony with:
> 
> 1. All image stabilization off
> 2. Just IBIS
> ...



It seems whatever "feature" a camera company "leaves out" there are always people who scream there is no reason to have left it out. Um, yes there is and are. Turns out IBIS causes heat and noise problems. Who knew? hahaha Turns out just turning it off doesn't help image quality either.

Now somebody who's been screaming the praises of Sony IBIS now says Sony poorly implemented the tech. It never ends.


----------



## bhf3737 (Nov 22, 2018)

4fun said:


> exactly!
> 
> It is not "the one or the other" any longer in late 2018. IBIS and IS complement each other. Actually IBIS should be the base line in every camera, so we get some degree of stabilization even when using non-IS lenses. Of course with a switch so users can turn it off whenever desired.
> 
> There is no valid reason why IBIS should not be in every camera in late 2018. By now all "innovative manufacturers" have figured out how to make IBIS and in-lens stabilization (if present) work together for even better effect. In terms of cost/economics I just say: if they can put (4k) video capture into each and every camera body, IBIS should go in even more so, since it is a lot more useful for the majority of stills shooters who buy all these cameras.



Companies spend a lot of R&D funds and resources to put a feature in a product for good reason. 
With due respect, "I want it and later If I don't need it I'll switch it off" is laughable in product development! 

I have read/watched several reviews about IBIS and studied the technology. 
But, unfortunately most of the arguments in reviews are like yours, saying everyone in the neighborhood has it, so do I ... 
There are very few cases that actually question the effectiveness of IBIS.
In my search, so far, I have not found any convincing reason/evidence that IBIS is needed and is useful in still photography. 
But I will be happy to find evidence that may overturn this. Instead of repeating the same boring buzz, could you please provide some evidence or give a link to a review that shows IBIS worked and no-IBIS failed, i.e., there is a significant difference (statistically speaking) between pictures taken with IBIS and no-IBIS. 
Perhaps you could mention a real use-case and post side-by-side pictures with the setup info to backup your argument.
In this way we can settle the issue for good.


----------



## padam (Nov 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> Anyways, at the end of the day, if you're getting blurry images, increase your shutter speed.


Until images shot at 6400 ISO are not anywhere close to being identical compared to let's say 800 ISO, this argument is just not valid. This is actually similar to a jump in several generations of sensor technology improvements. It is one of the main selling feature of the m43 system and there is no reason why it shouldn't appear elsewhere as well (arguably making the m43 less attractive than it was).

If one uses the fully articulating screen, the suppression of the camera shake is even more important. Same with the upcoming higher resolution sensors paired to the new optics.
Again, it's not an essential feature and it introduces another possible failure and let's be honest, no one really expected it to be included in the first iteration in Canon's world.
But the RF platform is designed with this in mind as well (some of the 'yet unused' contacts on the mount could be there for combining lens and sensor IS, probably a lot more effectively than with 'legacy' EF lenses) - and I suspect the attitude will suddenly change towards it when the second generation (finally) comes out and it turns out to be a major improvement both for photo and video.


----------



## cpreston (Nov 22, 2018)

Bennymiata said:


> On the other hand, video as well as stills are important to ME and I passed on buying an R, even though I have funds saved up for a new camera.
> I think the R handles really well, its lenses are fantastic and the still image quality is fantastic, but the video is poor compared to the competition.
> I saw a side by side comparison of the R's video compared to the Fuji XT-3m Nikon Z7, Sony A7 III etc., and the video is very soft in comparison.
> Now I've been a Canon shooter since 1968 (when I got my first new Canon SLR), but I'm seriously considering something else for my next camera purchase unless Canon do something about their soft video quality.
> I'm not interested in 4K so much, but even their 1080 is very soft, and I want an improvement in video from my 5D3, 70D and M5, which unfortunately the R doesn't do.



A couple things after having actually tested the video on the EOS R. Unlike some previous Canon cameras, the Canon does well with both in camera and post sharpening. Aliasing and noise artifacts aren't much of a problem. It also does well with noise reduction in camera.

In camera digital stabilization is bad.

The crop mode uses the 4K image processing to create a much more detailed image than the FHD. The FHD looks quite a bit like the 5D IV, which isn't unusable actually. But the cropped 1080p looks like the C100/300 line. But you lose 60p.

Honestly, the EOS-R is a great video camera if you don't want 60p and you want to use crop frame lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 22, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Companies spend a lot of R&D funds and resources to put a feature in a product for good reason.
> With due respect, "I want it and later If I don't need it I'll switch it off" is laughable in product development!
> 
> I have read/watched several reviews about IBIS and studied the technology.
> ...



Lenstip has measured the IS in the Pana-Leica 200mm to be worth 4.3 ev, which increases to 5.5 ev when synced with IBIS in the DMC-G9.
https://www.lenstip.com/521.3-Lens_...S._Build_quality_and_image_stabilization.html
Olympus claims a similar synergy for their 300mm f/4.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 22, 2018)

sure, IBIS has limitations. It does not replace using a tripod in many situations. That's when you may want to turn it off, btw. 

but all tests and reviews show that IBIS does work and is effective in many real life situations. i am happy with any help i can get in low light (static scene) to keep ISO lower by one, two or three EV and with a shutter speed i can handhold. 

if EOS R were a really low-price entry level cam, Canon might be forgiven. but more expensive than competition lack of IBIS is a serious flaw. especially when launching new hi-end RF lenses without IS at the same time.


----------



## bhf3737 (Nov 22, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Lenstip has measured the IS in the Pana-Leica 200mm to be worth 4.3 ev, which increases to 5.5 ev when synced with IBIS in the DMC-G9.
> https://www.lenstip.com/521.3-Lens_...S._Build_quality_and_image_stabilization.html
> Olympus claims a similar synergy for their 300mm f/4.


Thanks for the link. I have seen this before and It is quite interesting on itself. Perhaps it mainly shows the effectiveness of in lens stabilization. But I am looking for an experiment reporting similar effects for a lens without IS mounted on a body with IBIS while turning the IBIS on and off.


----------



## Talys (Nov 22, 2018)

4fun said:


> we should not have to make this choice. i'd rather want to choose between IBIS and video capture.
> DPAF does not preclude IBIS technically. And poor implementation in some Sony camera should not be indicative for what innovative Canon could do. ;-)
> 
> even if IBIS only yields 1 stop, it would be very welcome in difficult situations, when faster shutter speed means higher ISO and its cranjed up to 3200 or 6400 already.
> ...


This basically comes down to the opinion that manufacturer A has feature 1 you like , manufacturer B has feature 2 you like, and manufacturer C has feature 3 you like. Instead of choosing between them, what you want is one of those manufacturers to have features 1, 2 and 3, so that you don't have to make a choice.

Yes, I get it: some of us want 0-60 in 4 seconds and amazing fuel efficiency and lots of range, too. While we're at it, please also make it the least expensive option. Why can't manufacturers make it easy for us, and make one choice the most obvious and best one? Why

Because it actually is a competitive marketplace, each manufacturer has constraints, including profitability, costs, engineering timelines, and intellectual property rights. If Canon could give you a camera with IBIS, 8k video, 30fps, 15 steps of DR and 50 megapixels, all for just $2,000 don't you think they would? If Sony could add DPAF and offer a 200-400+TC, wouldn't they?

If there isn't anything that's perfect, just buy what works best for now; in 5 years, all the mirrorless options be a lot better; in 10 years, it will be mature and all the manufacturers will have offerings that are very same-y for both price and features, with each year's model being very similar to the last's. And then you know what will happen? Some company will become better at making them cheaper, and slowly drive some smaller competitors out of business. It's a movie we've seen.

No need to rush it... this is one of those few times in photography where we get to see some real differentiation between different manufacturers, at least for a little while. Relish it!


----------



## dak723 (Nov 22, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I'm not sure that's true. I think it's just the case that other brands have been releasing more compelling products over the past few years. The 5DIV, 6DII, M50 and EOS R have all had major drawbacks when compared with similarly priced cameras. All are okay cameras but the lack of features for the price is something that can't be ignored. The 5DIV is D850/A7RIII money, the 6DII is A7III money and so on. Again, okay cameras but definitely not competitive.



Just curious how many of the competitors you have tried? 

Does color science count? Do ergonomics count? Does the usability of a touch screen count? Does a swivel screen count? Does reliability count? 

Watched Dustin Abbot's fine review yesterday. Paraphrasing from memory, but Dustin felt that the R - compared to the competition - has the best color, the best EVF, the fastest AF, the best touch screen, the best grip and ergonomics and the best (because it's the only) swivel screen. I guess being the best in all of those categories just doesn't matter to some folks - which is OK. But those things do matter to some folks, which may indeed make the R quite competitive.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> No need to rush it... this is one of those few times in photography where we get to see some real differentiation between different manufacturers, at least for a little while. Relish it!



not really. For example: ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways and is only utilized (in earnest) by a small minority of purchasers. 

Or ... up to now NONE of the makers offers a really compact FF MILC ... why is there no FF MILC only slightly larger than Sony RX-1R II [or A7 1st gen] - with a lens mount up front in lieu of a Zeiss-branded 35mm fixed lens and a decent, compact battery [eg like Fuji's NP-W126S with 9 WHrs] ... ? And at an affordable price instead of "super-premium" ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways



Interesting. Other than having a red button I’ve never pressed and some menu items, I can’t immediately think of any negative impacts having video capability brings, especially to performance. Maybe without they could use slightly cheaper processors, but that would be a cost impact.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 23, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Interesting. Other than having a red button I’ve never pressed and some menu items, I can’t immediately think of any negative impacts having video capability brings, especially to performance. Maybe without they could use slightly cheaper processors, but that would be a cost impact.



to capture and process full-bore 4k video for up to 29 minutes a lot of compromises and design choices are necessary at the expense of stills functionality and higher cost of camera. 

* different sensor layout, meeting tough demands for video first; stills take second place 
* heat dissipation, more heat shielding, bigger body, potential overheat issues 
* video processing pipeline/codec - not free of cost, siphons away CPU power from stills and/or AF system performance; more features in firmawre = higher cost than needed for pure stills 
* audio: recording - amps + processing power + battery life at the expense of stills; stereo speakers, stereo mics, video-related output jacks [HDMI etc] - higher cost, more difficult to weatherseal; not needed for stills 
* UI/Control points/ergonomics: separate "red record video" button (instead of just using regular shutter button) typically not user-assignable, often very stupidly placed/inadvertent activation, wastes precious real estate
* menu cluttering - typically no choice to hide away unneeded video options/submenus; EOS R - no more mode dial because stills modes duplicated for video
...
and for sure some more. But it is force fed on ALL camera purchasers. I like the concept of Sony with dedicated, video-centric camera model (A7S series), but why is there no "pure stills" version?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> not really. For example: ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways and is only utilized (in earnest) by a small minority of purchasers.



To be fair, most functions are utilized by a small minority. The vast bulk of DSLRs sold spend their lives in “green box” mode


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> * different sensor layout, meeting tough demands for video first; stills take second place


What would they do differently in a stills only sensor? Isn’t video merely a bunch of sequential stills?



4fun said:


> * heat dissipation, more heat shielding, bigger body, potential overheat issues



A body designed for the heat of video would improve still quality (likely not enough to notice) and be less likely to overheat while taking stills.


4fun said:


> * video processing pipeline/codec - not free of cost, siphons away CPU power from stills and/or AF system performance; more features in firmawre = higher cost than needed for pure stills
> * audio: recording - amps + processing power + battery life at the expense of stills; stereo speakers, stereo mics, video-related output jacks [HDMI etc] - higher cost, more difficult to weatherseal; not needed for stills



That processing, audio amplification, and battery power is only consumed while recording video. It being there doesn’t affect stills performance in any discernible way. It affects bill of material cost, but is probably offset by the non-recurring development costs of parallel lines, especially if per above you want to see a stills-only sensor.


4fun said:


> * UI/Control points/ergonomics: separate "red record video" button (instead of just usingregular shutter button) typically not user-assignable, often very stupidly placed/inadvertent activation, wastes precious real estate


Camera controls in these “hybrid” cameras generally follow stills camera convention. If anything, it sucks for video.


4fun said:


> * menu cluttering - typically no choice to hide away unneeded video options/submenus; EOS R - no more mode dial because stills modes duplicated for video


It would be hard to argue a cluttered menu impairs still capture. If I have to go into the menu at all to take a photo, the UI is poor.


----------



## Talys (Nov 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> not really. For example: ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways and is only utilized (in earnest) by a small minority of purchasers.
> 
> Or ... up to now NONE of the makers offers a really compact FF MILC ... why is there no FF MILC only slightly larger than Sony RX-1R II [or A7 1st gen] - with a lens mount up front in lieu of a Zeiss-branded 35mm fixed lens and a decent, compact battery [eg like Fuji's NP-W126S with 9 WHrs] ... ? And at an affordable price instead of "super-premium" ...


What do you mean about video recording compromising optimal stills performance?

When something doesn't exist, it's because of one of two things: 1) it's not feasible or 2) manufacturers don't think there's a large enough market for that.

Putting aside the manufacturing costs, the reason FF MILCs aren't cheaper than they are is because the price curve is not that flexible. For a lot of people, $1000 is just as crazy a price as $2,000 for a camera.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 23, 2018)

I have to wonder if thise that bag the canon have even picked one up. I finally got to do so today(with a 50 1.2 attached) and it felt good in the hand. And to compare i also held a z6 and a73. Only the canon had a grip good enough for my little finger to sit comfortably. The nikon was marginal and the Sony was typically crap. The canon was actually a little lighter than I was expecting but still provided a good heft in the hand without being cumbersome. EVF was as good as I have seen but I still have reservations. Kept my eye to it for 5mins and started to get that achey feeling. I just can't see mirrorless ever being good enough for wildlife. Hopefully will get to have a decent test in a couple of weeks doing landscapes.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> Putting aside the manufacturing costs, the reason FF MILCs aren't cheaper than they are is because the price curve is not that flexible. For a lot of people, $1000 is just as crazy a price as $2,000 for a camera.



yes. But ... i still think there is a good deal of price elasticity. 1 grand/999 is a "magical threshold". unit sales would be massively higher than at 1999 or 2299. see Apple iphone: sales stalled when they tried to break that barrier. 

the other thing here is being more expensive than competitive products that are objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) more functionailty.

both factors contribute to the current "l won't buy into R yet, let's wait for the price to come down ... and more clarity regarding development of R system, bodies and lenses".


----------



## padam (Nov 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> Because it actually is a competitive marketplace, each manufacturer has constraints, including profitability, costs, engineering timelines, and intellectual property rights. If Canon could give you a camera with IBIS, 8k video, 30fps, 15 steps of DR and 50 megapixels, all for just $2,000 don't you think they would? If Sony could add DPAF and offer a 200-400+TC, wouldn't they?


Unfortunately Canon have passed this point (making products as good as they can) a long time ago, they are able to do much more than what they are already doing and they've also priced that to the maximum (although in their ecosystem, it is still less overpriced than the 5D IV or the 6D II originally were, because it is probably cheaper to produce as well).
And that's simply because it is a FF mirrorless camera with a strong new platform, nice optics (which will be another reason for people to buy into it, no matter the rest) and it has all the goodies Canon is known for (DPAF, flip-out screen, color science) and the rest is not so important. At least they are continually adding a few new features that haven't been available before at this level, and because multiple cameras are expected, we may not need to wait several years for some forward steps.


Talys said:


> No need to rush it... this is one of those few times in photography where we get to see some real differentiation between different manufacturers, at least for a little while. Relish it!


As consumers, the two basic tools that we have is either buy-in and accept (relish) this, or maybe choose something else to induce them to maybe try a bit harder next time. And that's it. But in the end as you've written, the differentiation will be narrowed down and all will be more and more similar, so they win anyway.

Whatever Sony "wins" on the feature front regarding the camera, they loose it back on not having the backbone like Canon has with the full support of the EF lenses, only the expensive FE lenses (and Canon is also winning against Nikon in that regard).


----------



## BillB (Nov 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. But ... i still think there is a good deal of price elasticity. 1 grand/999 is a "magical threshold". unit sales would be massively higher than at 1999 or 2299. see Apple iphone: sales stalled when they tried to break that barrier.
> 
> the other thing here is being more expensive than competitive products that are objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) more functionailty.
> 
> both factors contribute to the current "l won't buy into R yet, let's wait for the price to come down ... and more clarity regarding development of R system, bodies and lenses".


You have made your convictions concerning the marvels of price elasticity and the perils of objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) less functionality very clear. Economists live by the creed that sales would increase if prices came down and/or features were improved (not that I am accusing anybody of being an economist).

Shoulda, woulda, coulda rhetoric tends to lose its power to persuade with exagerration, repetition, and speculative fingerprinting. On the other hand, without these qualities shoulda, woulda, coulda rhetoric can seem obvious and pointless.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> You have made your convictions concerning the marvels of price elasticity and the perils of objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) less functionality very clear. Economists live by the creed that sales would increase if prices came down and/or features were improved (not that I am accusing anybody of being an economist).
> Shoulda, woulda, coulda rhetoric tends to lose its power to persuade with exagerration, repetition, and speculative fingerprinting. On the other hand, without these qualities shoulda, woulda, coulda rhetoric can seem obvious and pointless.



while specific metrics for this case are not publicly available, it is very real nevertheless. Canon is off to a slower start with EOS R than they could be because many potential customers like myself are holding off buying. Most of us don't buy end-of-line mirrorslappers and EF glass any longer and we don't buy into EOS R yet. Potential new customers without investment in Canon lenses and speedlites/accessories and no longstanding experience with and preference for Canon's user interface and color science etc. are more likely to buy into a competitor's FF MILC system that offers (somewhat and depending on specific use case) better functionality at a (somewhat) lower price.

Of course it is Canon's decision what they offer and at what price. It is my right however to point out where I think they are taking less than optimal or even outright bad decisions. For them and for some/many/most/all of their customers


----------



## Talys (Nov 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. But ... i still think there is a good deal of price elasticity. 1 grand/999 is a "magical threshold". unit sales would be massively higher than at 1999 or 2299. see Apple iphone: sales stalled when they tried to break that barrier.
> 
> the other thing here is being more expensive than competitive products that are objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) more functionailty.
> 
> both factors contribute to the current "l won't buy into R yet, let's wait for the price to come down ... and more clarity regarding development of R system, bodies and lenses".


Prices become inelastic when someone either must have some feature - because they're a professional and that tool generates revenue -- or really doesn't care about something -- like some amateurs who are already thrilled to have a good APSC. 

Sure, canon would sell more Rs at $1500 or $1000, but I really doubt the number of upsold units from $400 kits would be that high. I just dont think the FF market is that large, and for reasons beyond just price. You could drop R to $500, and the fella who prefers his Pixel will still never buy it. 

In any case, I choose to believe that obviously, when we further consider profit (and costs), the intersection of the supply and demand curves is around USD $2k for the body now. The alternative is that camera manufacturers are all stupid and collectively dont understand their market, which I just dont believe.


----------



## BillB (Nov 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> while specific metrics for this case are not publicly available, it is very real nevertheless. Canon is off to a slower start with EOS R than they could be because many potential customers like myself are holding off buying. Most of us don't buy end-of-line mirrorslappers and EF glass any longer and we don't buy into EOS R yet. Potential new customers without investment in Canon lenses and speedlites/accessories and no longstanding experience with and preference for Canon's user interface and color science etc. are more likely to buy into a competitor's FF MILC system that offers (somewhat and depending on specific use case) better functionality at a (somewhat) lower price.
> 
> Of course it is Canon's decision what they offer and at what price. It is my right however to point out where I think they are taking less than optimal or even outright bad decisions. For them and for some/many/most/all of their customers



Metrics on Canon R production and sales do exist, but they are not publicly available. There are no metrics for coulda shoulda woulda estimates on how well Canon would have done with an R Camera with "better" features, selling at a lower price.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> coulda shoulda woulda



Canon shoulda have made it less expensive, then I coulda and woulda have bought one.


----------



## padam (Nov 24, 2018)

Looking at the prices of Canon and Nikon (body only for simplicity), it is very interesting.

The Z6 in the US 2000$ while the EOS R is 2300$
But in Japan the Z6 is almost 2200$ and EOS R at nearly 1800$ (incl. 8% tax)

A grey market store in the EU that I am looking at:
Nikon Z6 2500$ EOS R 2050$

I guess the Z6 will drop a little internationally and the Canon will drop a little in the US, but it seems that Canon is overcharging in the US compared to Nikon (probably much stronger marketing), and Nikon wants to make grey market uncompetitive or marketed more as a 'premium product' in Japan?


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 24, 2018)

"Coulda shoulda woulda"? Sounds like somebody is or was a poker player. I used to play poker, but then I got involved in a much more expensive pastime, photography.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Nov 28, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> My 2 cents asto why Canon doesn't include IBIS: Money.
> 
> IBIS = every lens now has stabilization. Works almost as well as in lens IS when shooting static subjects to stabilize the camera shake of the photographer. Does not stabilize as well when trying to stabilize a panning shot, such as a moving car.
> 
> ...



It would also open up a lot of very good Sigma glass as competition for IS Canon lenses. I use Sigmas a lot on my Sony and Sony works with Sigma so they don't have to reverse engineer lens body communication. They work very well together. Sony doesn't seem to have that fear.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> not really. For example: ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways and is only utilized (in earnest) by a small minority of purchasers.



Yes really.

*Nikon Df2 DSLR (No video)
Sigma sd Quattro Camera (mirrorless, no video)
Sigma sd Quattro H Camera (mirrorless, no video)
Sigma SD1 Merrill Digital SLR (no video)
Olympus Pen (mirrorless, no video)*

*Pure stills cameras. No video. The Nikon is $2,799.00*

*Compact FF cameras:
Leica Q
Sony RX1R Mark II *


----------



## Talys (Nov 28, 2018)

padam said:


> Looking at the prices of Canon and Nikon (body only for simplicity), it is very interesting.
> 
> The Z6 in the US 2000$ while the EOS R is 2300$
> But in Japan the Z6 is almost 2200$ and EOS R at nearly 1800$ (incl. 8% tax)
> ...


Camera shops I've chatted with have said that when it comes to Mirrorless FF sales today, it's Sony > Canon > Nikon, and each step isn't particularly close. I think Nikon has to do more to be competitive in the mirrorless space, particularly since its FTZ adapted lenses aren't anything to write home about. The lowest hanging fruit is DSLR owners who buy a mirrorless body, but that's not going to happen if adapted lenses don't work about as well as they did on their DSLR bodies.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

"urban myth/fake news alarm" goes off here! 

All current Nikon F-mount lenses (especially all AF-S lenses) work as well on Nikon Z bodies when adapted via Nikon FTZ adapter as EF lenses do when adapted with OEM Canon adapter to Canon EOS R. 

in both cases AF performance is "within the limitations" of those designed for DSLR detached phase-AF operation lenses - depending on type of AF drive and possibly chip/control firmware in them. 

only outdated old analog-film-era Nikon shards (eg with screwdriver-AF and/or mechanical aperture ring shenanigans) that a few nerds still want to use on today's hi-performance sensors/digital cameras are not/not fully (AF-) functional any longer on Z-mount. direct consequence of Nikon using the same 1957 F-mount into the electronic era, rather than ditching/updating it much sooner (as Canon did with the advent of AF in 1987, FD -> EF). 

in reality a total non issue for majority of today's Nikon users and (potential) Nikon Z buyers. 

the whinging is just another vent for the largely irrational "adapter-phobia" often voiced in a misleading way by a few old-shard owners.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yes really.
> Nikon Df2 DSLR
> Sigma sd Quattro Camera
> Sigma sd Quattro H Camera
> ...



ah, yes thanks for pointing out those products, that are all totally irrelevant on the market because they miss the mark by a mile.

common denominator is "high price/poor usability/performance".
But, some of them could have been really interesting, had they been done "really right".

most of us are aware of the glaring problems the listed cameras gave. we avoid the like cancer because of those problems, not because their "lack of video recording".

done right, *Nikon Df *for example could have been a blockbuster FF camera. it was let down by its absurd retro approach, totally botched UI and most importantly the absurdly high price relative to its performance/functionality. why oh why did Nikon not repeat their smash hit D3/D700 combo approach and stick that same nice D4 sensor into a "regular UI, compact D710 body and price it sensibly at about 2 grand? they'd have sold tons of it (back in the day in 2013, not any longer end of 2018). but .. stupid Nikon. it had to be a brilliant teaser campaign followed by a totally overpriced, disfunctional and ugly retro hipster knurled mono-functional metal knobs turd. "the Fuji of Nikon". thanks, but no thanks. i bet the Nikon Df fail cost them dearly. well deserved.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

Now, that tiny *Sony RX1R II* is almost exactly what i would buy in an instant if it were available with FE mount up front plus somewhat better battery life and ... at a reasonable price (eg 1999 €/$). Or alternatively: if it came at least with a built-in good 24-85/4.0 *zoom *instead of a Zeiss-labelled 35mm fixed lens.
But ... stupid, Sony! Apparently they were obsessed to make a "Leica-type super-premium priced collector's item". And got what they deserved: almost no sales.

Same goes for *Leica Q*. What a waste of precious aero-space grade aluminium blocks that could be used for real, legit, highly functional products instead of on premium-priced collectibles ending up in glass shelves and as fancy auction items 100 years from now. Of course in "as-new, absolutely mint, un-used condition". 

Re. *Sigma cameras *the only word that comes to my mind is "digital aberrations". 
All of them thoroughly weird, limited and utterly unconvincing. Not because of "no video", but "despite of it". Me - and obviously vast majority of market - is neither interested in Foveon sensors limited to base ISO, nor in APS-H, nor in fixed-lens cameras, nor in clinically dead Sigma SA mount.

Personally i am actually not interested in any single current Sigma product, including their Art lenses, simply because i won't ever buy expensive gear that relies on reverse engineering for crucial functionality like AF. yuck!


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

*Oly Pen *.. useless retro concept from the start. feeling nostalgic those Oly execs should have gone and create a modern day, digital version 2.0 of the OM system: FF sensor, full capability, performance, functionality, user interface .., in the smallest possible bodies at most affordable prices. boom, they'd had a true winner. Instead they went all in with their micro midget FT sensor and retro styled stuff ... and are now at the brink of extinction as far as regular imaging gear goes. Even Pana has left them for a stint in Leica *L* La La Land. 

Stupid, Oly. bye bye.


----------



## padam (Nov 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> Camera shops I've chatted with have said that when it comes to Mirrorless FF sales today, it's Sony > Canon > Nikon, and each step isn't particularly close. I think Nikon has to do more to be competitive in the mirrorless space, particularly since its FTZ adapted lenses aren't anything to write home about. The lowest hanging fruit is DSLR owners who buy a mirrorless body, but that's not going to happen if adapted lenses don't work about as well as they did on their DSLR bodies.


If I were in the US would consider choosing the Nikon Z6, it just seems like a better platform for video and to use my vintage lenses with, but the current EU (and Japanese) pricing is just ridiculous, the Canon can be had for 1860 Euros now grey market with the EF adapter included or 2600 Euros with the kit lens and adapter, still a little bit too much (I think it may come down further after the initial excitement bogs down and its issues get more into focus), but way, way less overall. I'm just worried about a few things that people are reporting, and I want to try it out too see to those first, the best tactic is probably to chill out and and not rush it as the price won't increase. The A7SIII might also be a strong camera, although it will cost quite a bit more.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> *Oly Pen *.. useless retro concept from the start. feeling nostalgic those Oly execs should have gone and create a modern day, digital version 2.0 of the OM system: FF sensor, full capability, performance, functionality, user interface .., in the smallest possible bodies at most affordable prices. boom, they'd had a true winner. Instead they went all in with their micro midget FT sensor and retro styled stuff ... and are now at the brink of extinction as far as regular imaging gear goes. Even Pana has left them for a stint in Leica *L* La La Land.
> 
> Stupid, Oly. bye bye.


This is well off topic but even so I feel compelled to respond.
Before I bought my 5D mk4 I took a serious look at some of the leading mirrorless products that were available at the time, including cameras from Sony, Fuji and Olympus. Of the products I tested the only one that I would seriously consider buying is the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II because it is the only camera that offers a realistic alternative to a DSLR for sports and action shooting. It is weather sealed, comfortable to hold even without a monopod or tripod, 15 fps is respectable, I can live with the idea of a small 20 megapixel sensor and the camera with a telephoto lens mounted is significantly smaller and lighter than the DSLR equivalent. The lens I tried was the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm f4. It was accurate and responsive and the total weight is only 1.85Kg compared to say a Canon 1DXii with a 600mm F4 lens which is nearly 3.5Kg heavier.
There have been a lot of comments about the new Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras recently, and the Sony A7 or A9 series are attractive options, but in practice they offer few advantages over the existing range of DSLRs. They still require a large, heavy lens to be used due to the full frame sensor so what is the point? The Olympus uses a much smaller sensor so the lenses can be much smaller, and although I would not consider it for studio work it makes a great alternative for sports shooting where you need to be as mobile as possible.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> There have been a lot of comments about the new Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras recently, and the Sony A7 or A9 series are attractive options, but in practice they offer few advantages over the existing range of DSLRs. They still require a large, heavy lens to be used due to the full frame sensor so what is the point? The Olympus uses a much smaller sensor so the lenses can be much smaller, and although I would not consider it for studio work it makes a great alternative for sports shooting where you need to be as mobile as possible.



Haven't we arrived at a point, were there is no more real "reach advantage" for smaller sensors ... IQ from FF cropped in post better than from small sensor?


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> ah, yes thanks for pointing out those products, that are all totally irrelevant on the market because they miss the mark by a mile.
> 
> common denominator is "high price/poor usability/performance".
> But, some of them could have been really interesting, had they been done "really right".
> ...



**sigh** You said ALL mfgs put video in their cameras. *You were wrong.* Don't know what your definition of relevance is, but the fact remains that these cameras ARE on the market and SOMEBODY buys them.

Frankly, if I had the money, I might consider the Nikon. I happen to think the retro look is cool. Guess what? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. In fact, that's why I bought my Olympus over one of Canon's APSC cameras and the M. I got it specifically because of it's retro look. The DF has been around for 5 years or so.

Anyway, you completely miss the point of my post. **sigh**


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Anyway, you completely miss the point of my post. **sigh**



don't think so. As usual, you are ALL semantics and list a handful of mostly outdated oddball digital cameras sans video recording. So,* yes you are right,* they exist. Although, like most "atypical examples to the contrary" they rather prove my statement.

But since semantics are so important to you, I shall amend my earlier statement as follows:

"ALL relevant stills camera makers [those with more than 10% camera camera market share; Sigma, Oly and Leica leave the room] put freaking video recording into ALL of their current (* stills interchangeable lens cameras.

(* NO, Nikon Df from 2013 is NOT to be considered current any longer, even if there are still a few factory-new ones collecting dust on some shop shelves or in dark warehouses.

As if ALL of us were hybrid users, when in reality only a small fraction are capturing both stills and video in any meaningful way. (**

(** NO, wobbly 20sec cat video clips that might as well be taken with any cameraphone do not count here.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> don't think so. As usual, you are ALL semantics and list a handful of mostly outdated oddball digital cameras sans video recording. So,* yes you are right,* they exist. Although, like most "atypical examples to the contrary" they rather prove my statement.
> 
> But since semantics are so important to you, I shall amend my earlier statement as follows:
> 
> ...



The point is that you have a propensity to make up "facts". That isn't semantics at all. Them's the facts, Jack.

So now the question: When Sony falls below 10% market share will Sony then also be irrelevant? Like you say Sigma, Olympus, and Leica are? Or will Sony still be relevant because Sony is useful to your rants? Because, you know, in 2017 Sony was at 13.3% market share for system cameras. With Canon and Nikon now getting into the mirrorless game... Sony may have to leave the room.

https://petapixel.com/2018/08/01/sony-has-a-13-3-market-share-of-the-system-camera-market/

BTW: Olympus has the top spot in the mirrorless camera market, beating Sony, Nikon, and Canon wit 27.7%. Hardly Irrelevant. Semantics indeed.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/09666...canon-dominates-dslrs-tops-sony-in-mirrorless (Japanese market)

Now, move the goal posts again. 
(relevant = semantics)


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> So now the question: When Sony falls below 10% market share will Sony then also be irrelevant? Like you say Sigma, Olympus, and Leica are? Or will Sony still be relevant because Sony is useful to your rants? Because, you know, in 2017 Sony was at 13.3% market share for system cameras. With Canon and Nikon now getting into the mirrorless game... Sony may have to leave the room.
> https://petapixel.com/2018/08/01/sony-has-a-13-3-market-share-of-the-system-camera-market/



good point. Is this global market or Japan only? But less than 10% market share while 2 other companies have combined 75% ... is not very relevant in my book. 


btw: Personally I don't care about Sony. They once put a root kit on my PC by means of an honestly purchased music CD. It took me half a day to get rid of the malware. Ever since I am totally boycotting them. Only thing I like about Sony is that they have forced Canon (and Nikon) to cave in and finally also offer mirrorfree cameras, including ones with FF sensor.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> good point. Is this global market or Japan only? But less than 10% market share while 2 other companies have combined 75% ... is not very relevant in my book.
> 
> 
> btw: Personally I don't care about Sony. They once put a root kit on my PC by means of an honestly purchased music CD. It took me half a day to get rid of the malware. Ever since I am totally boycotting them. Only thing I like about Sony is that they have forced Canon (and Nikon) to cave in and finally also offer mirrorfree cameras, including ones with FF sensor.



So with 2 companies owning 75% market share... there are no other relevant companies. One of these two companies makes a stills only DSLR. Nikon.

As far as Sony forcing Nikon and Canon to cave... I don't believe that. I think both were into development anyway. However, neither of us has any possible way of knowing that. Conjecture and inferences aren't necessarily facts. I wish I could know Nikon's sales of the DF. There are many groups of owners that love them.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> Haven't we arrived at a point, were there is no more real "reach advantage" for smaller sensors ... IQ from FF cropped in post better than from small sensor?



You would need an 80 Mp FF camera to get the same pixels on target as the the 20 MP Olympus, so no, we have not arrived at that point.
And the second advantage when using a crop camera in reach advatage situations, is that is much easier to frame your composition when using the entire viewfinder. Trying to anticipate the cropped area of a FF sensor is not very easy and often leads to unbalanced compositions, or compositions with unintended objects at the edges or object being cut off and leading the eye out of the frame.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 28, 2018)

dak723 said:


> And the second advantage when using a crop camera in reach advatage situations, is that is much easier to frame your composition when using the entire viewfinder. Trying to anticipate the cropped area of a FF sensor is not very easy and often leads to unbalanced compositions, or compositions with unintended objects at the edges or object being cut off and leading the eye out of the frame.



That is a non issue with mirrorless cameras, however.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2018)

dak723 said:


> You would need an 80 Mp FF camera to get the same pixels on target as the the 20 MP Olympus, so no, we have not arrived at that point.
> And the second advantage when using a crop camera in reach advatage situations, is that is much easier to frame your composition when using the entire viewfinder. Trying to anticipate the cropped area of a FF sensor is not very easy and often leads to unbalanced compositions, or compositions with unintended objects at the edges or object being cut off and leading the eye out of the frame.



Um, I have a FF Canon and a Micro 4/3 Olympus. The image quality is higher on my Canon than the Olympus as it relates to framing the same. I think sensor size and pixel pitch has more to do with IQ than the # of pixels when comparing a FF 5D Mark III to an Olympus E-M5 Mark II.

As far as I know there is no reach advantage. There's just a different field of view. If I use a 24-70 on my Canon and my 12-40 on the Olympus (crop factor 2x), and set the Oly at 30mm and the Canon at 60mm I am standing at the same exact spot with each camera to get the same framing. Right? There is no reach advantage. To me, "Reach" implies the crop sensor gets one closer to the target. It doesn't. Only the FOV has changed.

IQ? Please. My 5D Mark III beats my Olympus hands down, just like it killed my old 70D. So get all the pixels on target you like, M4/3 will never beat FF. Never. Of course, a better comparison might be a Canon M4/3 camera that uses EF lenses for comparison. Don't think we will ever see that. Hoping I did not misunderstand the post.

Do you own a FF and also M43 camera? I do. I shoot fashion shows. I would *never choose to do that with my Olympus.*

I used to shoot night time football games. Would I ever do that with the Olympus? Hell no.

So, unless you are going to say that for wildlife shooting the M4/3 has an advantage, I call BS. I also call BS on the idea it offers any advantage at all. The only advantage in my experience is weight. There really is not a size advantage worth mentioning.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 29, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Really?
> View attachment 181675


People just make stuff up. It's like the people who say, "95% of people this or that." People just make things up so that their imaginary world isn't disturbed. Forget facts. Just make it up. Critical thinking is dead. Lazy delusion is alive and well. My dad used to say particular people were brain lazy. Good term.


----------



## Joules (Nov 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> There's just a different field of view. If I use a 24-70 on my Canon and my 12-40 on the Olympus (crop factor 2x), and set the Oly at 30mm and the Canon at 60mm I am standing at the same exact spot with each camera to get the same framing. Right? There is no reach advantage. [...] My 5D Mark III beats my Olympus hands down, just like it killed my old 70D. So get all the pixels on target you like, M4/3 will never beat FF.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Only advantage in my experience is weight.


First, I don't own either a m4/3 nor digital Full Frame camera, just an 80D. So I have no real experience on the mattter. But I have been giving this some thought recently since I want to purchase a new lens to get more reach than my 55-250 IS STM provides.

So I believe you've demonstrated the point really well. The only differences between sensor sizes are the area which captures light, and for equal focal lengths this changes the field of view. To see the reach advantage, you just have to construct your example a bit differently.

You're standing in the same spot with two cameras: One with FF and one with m4/3 sensor. Both have a lens with the same physical focal length attached, say a Canon 300mm 4.0 L IS.

The m4/3 captures only one fourth of the lenses image circle's area. So it gives a tighter framing and collects only one fourth the amount of photons projected by the lens. Some people express these facts by saying the 300mm 4.0 behaves like a 600mm 8.0 lens on the m4/3 cameras. Think of that way of putting it as you wish. 

The FF camera obviously captures more of the image circle, giving an image that is twice as large in both dimensions and contains 4 times the photons. However, it frames way less tightly.

But you could simply crop into the image. To match the framing of the m4/3 camera, you would have to half your image height and width, leaving you with the same FoV as the crop body and the same amount of collected light. So now your images should be equal in framing and noise, given the same output view size and similar sensor technologies. Your 5D image would have been reduced to 5,5 MP though, where the Olympus would have 16 so for large output sizes, the Olympus image might be better suited.

You argument from your original example was that you can just use a better lens on the FF body to avoid the cropping. Well, go do that. A Canon 600mm 4.0 will cost you more money than either camera did when you purchased it though. You could also just use a 2X teleconverter on the FF body and leave the crop as is for a mild price increase, but you would still lose 2 stops of light, bringing you back to a similar situation where both cameras frame equal and produce the same noise when viewed under identical output circumstances. 

So, the reach advantage boils down to: Theoretically, at 300mm the higher pixel density of a crop body yields a greater potential for magnification using the same lens. Or, put differently, for a constant weight and price, you get more reach from a crop body.

If my understanding of this topic is wrong I would love to hear about it. I've used this argumentation to estimate how much value I'd get out of a Sigma 150-600mm C compared to a Canon 100-400mm IS II and so far I'm thinking I'd be losing some AF capabilities and build quality but getting equivalent optic quality and reach with 118% the weight for 45% the cost. Which seems a good deal for me. If I see this wrong, please enlighten me.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Nov 29, 2018)

4fun said:


> Haven't we arrived at a point, were there is no more real "reach advantage" for smaller sensors ... IQ from FF cropped in post better than from small sensor?


Well as usual you are missing the point. The point I was trying to make is that the Olympus is a lot smaller and lighter than the equivalent DSLR but the same cannot be said of the full frame mirrorless cameras that are available. It is the size of the lens i am talking about, not the camera body.
Yes, when viewed side by side the image from the full frame camera is probably going to be better than the one from the Olympus, but sports photography is all about capturing the moment and you are more likely to be able to achieve that if you are not carrying a huge camera and lens around.


----------



## Talys (Nov 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> People just make stuff up. It's like the people who say, "95% of people this or that." People just make things up so that their imaginary world isn't disturbed. Forget facts. Just make it up. Critical thinking is dead. Lazy delusion is alive and well. My dad used to say particular people were brain lazy. Good term.



You can blame the fact free turd in the oval office for making it cool to just make stuff up. I can't believe that on CNN, they did a WH press conference with a split screen with fact checking on the left while it aired live.

I wish my high school and college papers could have been done that way. Instead of doing research, just make some stuff up and claim it as fact!


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 29, 2018)

Joules said:


> First, I don't own either a m4/3 nor digital Full Frame camera, just an 80D. So I have no real experience on the mattter. But I have been giving this some thought recently since I want to purchase a new lens to get more reach than my 55-250 IS STM provides.
> 
> So I believe you've demonstrated the point really well. The only differences between sensor sizes are the area which captures light, and for equal focal lengths this changes the field of view. To see the reach advantage, you just have to construct your example a bit differently.
> 
> ...



First, I do not believe the Sigma lens you are talking about is available for M4/3. However, Fuji offers the
Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR (M4/3) for $1,599 with the current rebate here in the states. That's equivalent framing to an 800mm on FF if you go M4/3. Regular price is $1,899 and more expensive than the Canon 100-400. I don't know about Germany. But we were not speaking about lenses. We were speaking about sensor performance. That being the case, I would stick to the 80D and buy the Sigma lens long before switching to M4/3. But don't forget that the Sigma is a slower lens than the Canon. However, there is also the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L that offers great value at about $1,200. On your 80D it would be equivalent to 640mm framing. Why you want to throw the Canon 600MM f/4L into this discussion at all makes no sense to me. I could also add a 2X tele converter to a 400mm lens and get 800mm on FF, or it would "behave" like a 1,280mm on your 80D. So tell me how crop is an advantage again? When all I need is one of Canon's superb tele converters?

Second, my argument was not that I could use a "better" lens to avoid cropping. That is not what I said or implied at all. Again, my post did not have to do with lenses. It really had to do with what dak723 said about M4/3 systems. From my own real world experience I can say I'll take FF over M4/3 any day. Theory is one thing, actual use is another.

Third, low light performance and noise are absolutely not the same. Maybe one would want to argue this point based on shooting a bird from 30 yards? Then argue that. Sitting in the living room of your house where my example makes perfect sense and we are both using the lenses I mentioned (14-40 M4/3, 24-70 FF).

Fourth, if sensor size doesn't make a difference then why not just use an iPhone and install this? https://shop.brando.com/iphone-xr-6...escope-with-tripod-stand_p20102c1597d066.html

I said I would not use my Olympus M4/3 to shoot fashion shows or night time football. I shot football with my 70D and my 70-200 and 400mm. When I switched to FF the difference was clear to me. I have never missed my 70D. I wouldn't use one for fashion shows either.

In the end we have to choose for ourselves. However, saying or implying that a M4/3 sensor on an Olympus will resolve as well as an 80mp FF sensor in any possible situation is absurd. Ridiculous. (dak723)


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> You can blame the fact free turd in the oval office for making it cool to just make stuff up. I can't believe that on CNN, they did a WH press conference with a split screen with fact checking on the left while it aired live.
> 
> I wish my high school and college papers could have been done that way. Instead of doing research, just make some stuff up and claim it as fact!


Nah. It was cool long before that. Don't give him that much credit. I don't think either candidate was worth a $ h t. But this is a camera forum, not a political forum. I come here to escape all that.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 29, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Well as usual you are missing the point. The point I was trying to make is that the Olympus is a lot smaller and lighter than the equivalent DSLR but the same cannot be said of the full frame mirrorless cameras that are available. It is the size of the lens i am talking about, not the camera body.



1. "sports photography" ... a very wide field. So many sports. Outdoor/Field vs. indoor. Table tennis in poorly lit indoor venues is one challenge, a basketball court another one, a large soccer/football/baseball stadium another one, track&field outdoors, snow sports, swimming, car racing, .... all different needs. Only some sports require use of big long [white ] tele lenses.

2. Unfortunately size, weight and price of mFT gear do not scale well with sensor size. mFT sensor surface is only about a quarter of FF, but "pro"-grade mFT lenses are almost as big, fat, heavy and expensive.

For me mFT has therefore never been enticing. I rather go for a camera with larger sensor and lenses 1 or 2 stops slower, smaller, lighter, less expensive. f/4.0 FF zooms would require f/2.0 zooms on mFT for full equivalence. They would not be much smaller, lighter or less expensive.

3. With today's hi-rez FF sensors - 40, 50, + MP - the "reach advantage" of smaller sensors has become a "mere illusion".


----------



## dak723 (Nov 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Um, I have a FF Canon and a Micro 4/3 Olympus. The image quality is higher on my Canon than the Olympus as it relates to framing the same. I think sensor size and pixel pitch has more to do with IQ than the # of pixels when comparing a FF 5D Mark III to an Olympus E-M5 Mark II.
> 
> As far as I know there is no reach advantage. There's just a different field of view. If I use a 24-70 on my Canon and my 12-40 on the Olympus (crop factor 2x), and set the Oly at 30mm and the Canon at 60mm I am standing at the same exact spot with each camera to get the same framing. Right? There is no reach advantage. To me, "Reach" implies the crop sensor gets one closer to the target. It doesn't. Only the FOV has changed.
> 
> ...



I can not argue against your own experience. Yes, there are clearly advantages to a FF sensor. 

However, I have owned FF, Canon crop and M4/3rds systems. While not doing any scientific analysis, with the cameras and lenses that I do or did own, clearly my experience and results differed from yours. I shoot almost exclusively in daylight and print no larger than 8" x 12". For telephoto situations, I felt the Olympus gave me the best overall results - including the ability to frame the composition exactly as I want. If the resolution was lower - and it may very well have been - it was not noticeable at the print size I used. In fact, the FF results in general, were not noticeably enough better than with either crop size, so I ended up selling the FF.

Again, different photographers have different results. I will not consider your results and experience to be BS however.


----------



## Joules (Nov 30, 2018)

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you of something or if I formulated my post to confusingly. I just wanted to present my understanding of the reach advantage of higher pixel density bodies so that somebody could point out a flaw in it if it exists.


CanonFanBoy said:


> First, I do not believe the Sigma lens you are talking about is available for M4/3. [...] But we were not speaking about lenses.


I only brought up the sigma zoom to show why I'm curious about the subject. But lets ignore that, I'm really just curious about the theory. It's what I find the most interesting about the CR forum.

Things like the formula for spatial resolution that was mentioned in another threat here just don't come up in the kind of YouTube Videos I watch, for example.

And you are right that theory has its limits, but it also has its value. For example, I used to believe that the act of raising the ISO itself is the source of noise that appears when working with low light, until I read into Signal to Noise ratio.


CanonFanBoy said:


> Why you want to throw the Canon 600MM f/4L into this discussion at all makes no sense to me. I could also add a 2X tele converter to a 400mm lens and get 800mm on FF, or it would "behave" like a 1,280mm on your 80D. So tell me how crop is an advantage again? When all I need is one of Canon's superb tele converters?


Let me try to put my example differently:

A FF und m4/3 Body stand in the same Position an have the same 300mm 4.0 lens attached. The FF body will have a wider FoV. To match the crop Bodies FoV there are three options:

- Crop the image in half horizontally and vertically. By doing this, 75% of the gathered signal and resolution is discarded, raising the Signal to Noise Ratio to the same value as the Crop body (Assuming similar sensor technology) .
- Use a 2X Teleconverter. By doing this, the Signal is also reduced by 75%. The sensor resolution is maintained though. Total resolution will still be affected by the quality degradation in the lens + TC system.
- Use a lens with 600mm focal length. If the current aperture is to be maintained to maintain the amount of Signal this requires the purchase of the 600mm 4.0.

Obviously the first option has no additional weight or cost. Once cropped to the same FoV, the images from both cameras should be equal if their pixel density is equal. Otherwise, the body with higher density (Which today would most likely be the crop body) should have the advantage when the output size is big enough to show the difference in detail. 

The second option is the same, except now no cropping is involved and total amount of pixels can be compared instead of pixel density. Oh, and it adds a bit of weight and cost to the FF system.

The third is optically the best, as no signal and no resolution are lost for the FF System, giving it a 2 stop advantage over the crop system in terms of gathered signal. However, the price increase will rule this option out for many.

Does that make it clearer what I was trying to say? I'm not Considering the 300mm or 600mm as lenses to buy, I just used them to make the point that the term reach advantage could be meaningfull. 



CanonFanBoy said:


> Second, my argument was not that I could use a "better" lens to avoid cropping. That is not what I said or implied at all.


In your example you compared a 30mm lens on the m4/3 body to a 60mm on the FF body. I understand that as "To match the FoV between bodies of different sensor size, use greater Focal lengths on the body with the greater sensor size". So I used an example where this is more or less impossible due to price constraints to show how the term reach advantage could make sense. 


CanonFanBoy said:


> Third, low light performance and noise are absolutely not the same.


Okay, I wrote noise in the last post when I should have used signal to noise ratio. Which should be the same as what you call low light Performance.


CanonFanBoy said:


> Fourth, if sensor size doesn't make a difference then why not just use an iPhone[...].


Sensor size makes a difference. A larger sensor captures more signal if all other factors (Exposure time, f-number, lightsource) are equal. However, this signal gets reduced when you crop, so the output of a larger sensor should become equal to the one from a smaller sensor if cropped to the samw size. At that point, given similar sensor tecchnologies only the remaining resolution should determine image quality. Am I wrong? 


CanonFanBoy said:


> In the end we have to choose for ourselves. However, saying or implying that a M4/3 sensor on an Olympus will resolve as well as an 80mp FF sensor in any possible situation is absurd. Ridiculous. (dak723)


I think all dak723 said that to match a 20MP m4/3 sensor's pixel density you would need an 80MP Full Frame sensor. Which is true. Obviously the Full Frame sensor is now equal or better than the smaller sensor in any situation in terms of image quality.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 30, 2018)

@Joules 

mFT sensor diagonal is 21.6mm, FF is 43.27mm -> factor 2 for diagonal FOV 
mFT sensor area is about 225 mm2, FF is 864 mm2 -> factor 3.84, close to 4

Looking at spatial resolution / matching pixel density or "pixels on target" for FF vs. mFT factor 4 (or 3.84) applies

But ... FF sensor area collects 3.84x more light than mFT = about +2 stops -> better S/N ratio. Not having done any such comparison myself, I believe some of that advantage (not all of it) will also be present at the pixel level and would expect a cropped image from a good, current 40-50MP FF sensor eg Canon 5Ds/R or Nikon D850, Sony A7R III to (technically) match any 20 MP mFT image. 

For full equivalence (= including DOF) factor 4 (3.84) applies. So equivalence for a 600/4.0 FF lens would require a (non-existing) mFT 300/*2.0* lens, not a 300/4.0 ... or other way round, a 300/4.0 mFT lens is equivalent to a 600/*8.0* FF lens. 

In my view, mFT has (about) 25% of FF sensor area, and 25% "technical capability". But unfortunately size/weight/price of mFT gear is more than 50%, often closer to 75% of [equivalent] FF gear. Currently best ratio/most "bang for the buck" is APS-C, especially EOS M/EF-M.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Dec 12, 2018)

4fun said:


> 1. "sports photography" ... a very wide field. So many sports. Outdoor/Field vs. indoor. Table tennis in poorly lit indoor venues is one challenge, a basketball court another one, a large soccer/football/baseball stadium another one, track&field outdoors, snow sports, swimming, car racing, .... all different needs. Only some sports require use of big long [white ] tele lenses.
> 
> 2. Unfortunately size, weight and price of mFT gear do not scale well with sensor size. mFT sensor surface is only about a quarter of FF, but "pro"-grade mFT lenses are almost as big, fat, heavy and expensive.
> 
> ...



Well the sport I photograph most often is rugby union. The action moves from one end of the pitch to the other very quickly so photographers are faced with a choice. Either:
1) stay in one place using a large DLSR system such as a Canon 1DX or Nikon D5 with a large telephoto lens such as a 500mm or 600mm F4 and accept that you are going to miss some of the action.
or
2) choose a lighter and more mobile set up.
Running up and down the touchline carrying a 1DX and 500mm F4 lens is not for the faint hearted and then you also need a second camera for the close up shots, so in recent years I have started using a Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6. On a bright sunny day in September this works perfectly, but at this time of year F5.6 is juts too slow. From half time onwards I have to resort to ISO of 51,200 or even higher in order to obtain a fast enough shutter speed and needless to say the results are not good.
I would dearly love another option and the Olympus 300mm F4 looks like an attractive possibility. Combined with an OM-D E-M1 Mark II it would give me a burst rate of 15fps, weather sealing and an additional stop of light. However, before I go out and buy one, please would you explain what are the negative aspects of this system?


----------



## Joules (Dec 12, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> I would dearly love another option and the Olympus 300mm F4 looks like an attractive possibility. Combined with an OM-D E-M1 Mark II it would give me a burst rate of 15fps, weather sealing and an additional stop of light. However, before I go out and buy one, please would you explain what are the negative aspects of this system?


The downside is the sensor size. Even though at f4 the 300mm Olympus lens on its own yields twice the amount of light per area compared to a f5.6 lens, the sensor's small area means that the total amount of light gathered is still less than that of a Full Frame camera and lens combination.

An APS-C Sensor captures ~1.45 times as much light than a Four Thirds one, and a full frame sensor captures 3.84 times as much light as Four Thirds. So, to see an actual improvement in Signal to Noise ratio, you'd need to use a lens with a two stop advantage on the Four Thirds camera.

However if you use your 100-400mm on a Full Frame body, to match the 600mm equivalent Field of View you get by using a 300mm lens on a Four Thirds sensor you'd have to crop the pictures from it. And that should reduce the total gathered signal, resulting in an image where noise is more pronounced (Or magnified, if you want to think about it like that). If I'm right about that, to get to equal FoV the FF Image would require Cropping to 44.4% of the image ( (400 / 600)^2 = 0.667^2 = 0.444), reducing the Full Frame sensor's 3.84 times light gathering advantage to 1.71 times (0.444 * 3.84). Which is less than the stop of light advantage that the 300mm f4 has over the 400mm f5.6, but not much.

Take this with a big grain of salt, since its just my understanding of this and I haven't had the time to test it out much. I wanted to do some comparison of this concept with actual pictures last weekend, put didn't find the time. When I do and the results are worth showing I might post them in the forum.

Since 4fun says the Micro Four Thirds system's supposed advantage in a scenario like this isn't a thing anymore, maybe he or somebody else can also point out a mistake in my train of thought.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 12, 2018)

yes, I see calculation geometrically the same way for 400/5.6 FF vs. 300/4 mFT ... 3.84 < 4. 
And if one really needs 4.1° diagonal angle of view [600mm FL on FF] ... and no zoom ... then mFT 300/4 is an alternative ... fully equivalent to a 600 / roughly f/7.8 lens on FF. 
However I also believe FF system still has an advantage over mFT even with equivalent pixel density and pixel size sensors, as long as crop is taken (more or less) from center of image. In terms of sharpness/acuity and light transmission/less vignetting - amount depending on characteristics of lenses in comparison.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Dec 25, 2018)

Joules said:


> The downside is the sensor size. Even though at f4 the 300mm Olympus lens on its own yields twice the amount of light per area compared to a f5.6 lens, the sensor's small area means that the total amount of light gathered is still less than that of a Full Frame camera and lens combination.
> 
> An APS-C Sensor captures ~1.45 times as much light than a Four Thirds one, and a full frame sensor captures 3.84 times as much light as Four Thirds. So, to see an actual improvement in Signal to Noise ratio, you'd need to use a lens with a two stop advantage on the Four Thirds camera.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your detailed explanation. I think I would be willing to accept a loss of image quality in order to have a smaller and thus more mobile set up. Nobody really looks at the technical aspects of my pictures anyway. What is most important is to capture the moment and present the key moments from the match for people who were not able to be there.
I know at least one photographer who has switched from a Nikon full frame system to the Olympus and he is convinced that he made the right decision. However, I am still sitting on the fence and wondering whether I would regret the decision.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 13, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> My 2 cents asto why Canon doesn't include IBIS: Money.
> 
> IBIS = every lens now has stabilization. Works almost as well as in lens IS when shooting static subjects to stabilize the camera shake of the photographer. Does not stabilize as well when trying to stabilize a panning shot, such as a moving car.
> 
> ...




No one needs IS to shoot sports with a 70-200. The shutter speeds required for shooting sports are short enough that IS does not matter. Neither would IBIS. If you can't get a clean, blur free shot with a 200mm lens shooting at 1/800 or faster, you don't need to be shooting sports.

The reason the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II sold so well to sports shooters, in numbers the older EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS did not, is because it was also a sharper lens than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L or the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS.


----------



## FilmJams (Jan 22, 2019)

We're loving our EOS R. I think it's a blast to shoot with compared to our 5D mkIII and the colours over the Sony A7III which we also use, are much better in our preference. Here's a link to a video comparison we did between the 5D and the EOS R - if you want to see side by side comparisons (shot on 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2, and 135mm f2): 

Link to Site Removed by Mod. Its primarily advertising.


----------

