# RP going back, unopened



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (Mar 2, 2019)

The R is a nice camera. The RP is.... less than even what I expected for the low price.

Mine's not due in until Monday, but the local Best Buy had one out to fondle. The viewfinder really doesn't cut it for me. Very hard to see with glasses, while I have no issue at all with the R. 

Ah well.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 2, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> The R is a nice camera. The RP is.... less than even what I expected for the low price.
> 
> Mine's not due in until Monday, but the local Best Buy had one out to fondle. The viewfinder really doesn't cut it for me. Very hard to see with glasses, while I have no issue at all with the R.
> 
> Ah well.


Interesting......

What was it that you found so terrible? Was it the diopter adjustment? Brightness? Contrast? As someone with strong glasses, I am very curious.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (Mar 2, 2019)

The diopter adjustment was fine. Brightness/contrast maybe a little more "contrasty" than the R, but I'd have to A/B compare. Could have been the store lighting. Brightness was ok for the store at least. Had a LOT of trouble seeing the corners. With the 5DmkIII I can see the whole screen with my glasses on. This was very much not the case with the RP. With the RP, it was like my eye had to dance around under the shower to get wet (visually speaking). I'd be using the EVF better than half the time, as I tend to shoot in full daylight.

Canon once made a do-hickey for the 5DmkII that changed the viewfinder image, allowing a smaller but entire screen to be seen at once, and I've got one. Works ok, pretty well in fact. But, that won't do with the RP, as the detail on the screen is pretty small to begin with. I'm thinking I remember seeing an adjustment for on screen display sizes from reading the manual, but I could be confused on that. Either way, Canon doesn't offer that type of eyepiece correction for the RP (at least not right now).

There are other considerations too. Camera didn't "feel" all that great, but I could get used to that. Seemed too light... sort of toyish. I know the target market is those folks "moving up" to full frame, fully admit from shooting 5D series I'm used to having some heft in a camera. Like I said, that would grow to be something accustomed to.

The main reason I considered the RP was the smaller size. Even though the RF lenses seem very big, the bodies are not all that small actually. A little smaller than a 7D series, a lot bigger than an old Rebel XTi. Of course, those are crop sensor cameras too. 

My hope was to be a bit more stealthy, with an 40/2.8 pancake and adapter (which is smaller, together, than the RF 35/1.8). I don't see being any significantly smaller with the RP over the R, and the R has features I really like - like the EVF is pretty nice, plus shutter over the sensor, same battery as my 5D series cameras (a plus since I travel a bit, don't need extra crap). All the rest is just vanilla vs chocolate to me, and I don't shoot all that much video - only very very occasionally some ten or fifteen second clips like old newsreel stuff.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> The viewfinder really doesn't cut it for me.


The better VF was one reason I went with the R over the RP. I did need to set the picture style to natural, standard in the VF to too ‘technicolor’ for me.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 2, 2019)

Its not a $2200 camera or a $3600 one. Expecting the same features as a camera costing $1000 more is going to disappoint some. For me, a viewfinder is for composing a photo, and a evf is useless for evaluating the quality of the colors or brightness of the image.

I have the R, and don't like the quality of the image I see thru the EVF (as compared to my 5D MK IV), but for composing photos and seeing the settings, it works well.

My main question about a RP is how the quality of the images holds up, how are images compared to a 80D?

At the low end, its the image output that is the big concern.


----------



## Pape (Mar 2, 2019)

i like about idea getting histogram to viewfinder  i am not selfconfident enough to trust my exposures are right and need stop photographing to look back screen if its right 
birds usually dont like that big movement.
but yeah view finder is more for composing ,auto focus should do focusing right ,trying see too sharp makes just eyes tired.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 2, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> The R is a nice camera. The RP is.... less than even what I expected for the low price.
> 
> Mine's not due in until Monday, but the local Best Buy had one out to fondle. The viewfinder really doesn't cut it for me. Very hard to see with glasses, while I have no issue at all with the R.
> 
> Ah well.



At least you are sending it back unopened so the seller loses money only on the wasted postage. If you have a local store that stocks the camera, why not buy it from them? Support your local store.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (Mar 2, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its not a $2200 camera or a $3600 one. Expecting the same features as a camera costing $1000 more is going to disappoint some. For me, a viewfinder is for composing a photo, and a evf is useless for evaluating the quality of the colors or brightness of the image.
> 
> My main question about a RP is how the quality of the images holds up, how are images compared to a 80D?



I think we're essentially in agreement. The EVF is ok enough, but for _me_ with my glasses (about a 2.5 diopter), my nose maybe... heck I dunno... it just is hard to see the corners or side edges. Hard to see, hard to compose, no?

I had another question, thread someplace here, about the adjusted microlenses on either R or RP sensors, and their use with short focal length EF lenses. My concern is that the R and RP are "optimized" for RF lens backfocal distances, which would be most critical on lenses of under about 35mm or 50mm focal length. I have no doubt that is the case. But what I've yet to really dig into, is if the R or RP (and really, just the R at this point, since the RP is goin' back) are going to show some issues with my short focal length EF lenses. You really don't see much about that, but it seems a logical extension of Canon Japan saying what they did about optimizing the microlenses. I asked CUSA about it, and they beat around the bush, saying that the sensors were absolutely not the same as the 5D mkIV and 6D mkII regardless of microlens design. Maybe they didn't get the memo? Then instead of addressing possible EF lens quality issues on the R/RP sensors, the canned response of "EF lenses are fully *operational* on RF camera bodies with the adapter". Time will tell.... and not to waste too much more, back to the yard work, already in progress!


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (Mar 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> At least you are sending it back unopened so the seller loses money only on the wasted postage. If you have a local store that stocks the camera, why not buy it from them? Support your local store.



Because I have loyalties with both CUSA and B&H that go back to the early 1970s. Canon and B&H have both earned my business. And I would not open even the outer shipping box on for an item that I knew I wasn't going to keep.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 2, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> Because I have loyalties with both CUSA and B&H that go back to the early 1970s. Canon and B&H have both earned my business. And I would not open even the outer shipping box on for an item that I knew I wasn't going to keep.


Nothing wrong with buying on line, it's often very convenient. But, handling the stock in the local store to make your decision on what to buy on line seems unfair to some of us and leads to city centres becoming devoid of shops.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (Mar 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Nothing wrong with buying on line, it's often very convenient. But, handling the stock in the local store to make your decision on what to buy on line seems unfair to some of us and leads to city centres becoming devoid of shops.



Simple logic would indicate that I obviously did not do that. If I had handled, examined, evaluated the wares locally, coming to the conclusion that "it wasn't right for me", why would I then order the item online after the handling, examination and evaluation only to return it? 

Actually, I was in the store on Friday, getting some ear buds, had already pre-ordered the RP, was expecting delivery Monday, but just got curious. And, this particular Best Buy only had it with the RF 24-105L "kit" (at least on Friday afternoon). 

All's well, I'm gonna pull the trigger on a second R tonite when B&H opens up online.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 2, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> Simple logic would indicate that I obviously did not do that. If I had handled, examined, evaluated the wares locally, coming to the conclusion that "it wasn't right for me", why would I then order the item online after the handling, examination and evaluation only to return it?
> 
> Actually, I was in the store on Friday, getting some ear buds, had already pre-ordered the RP, was expecting delivery Monday, but just got curious. And, this particular Best Buy only had it with the RF 24-105L "kit" (at least on Friday afternoon).
> 
> All's well, I'm gonna pull the trigger on a second R tonite when B&H opens up online.


The logic is absolutely crystal clear - you made your decision not to buy based on your fondling of the camera in the Best Buy store and your disliking of the EVF. Is that not true?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 2, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> I think we're essentially in agreement. The EVF is ok enough, but for _me_ with my glasses (about a 2.5 diopter), my nose maybe... heck I dunno... it just is hard to see the corners or side edges. Hard to see, hard to compose, no?
> 
> I had another question, thread someplace here, about the adjusted microlenses on either R or RP sensors, and their use with short focal length EF lenses. My concern is that the R and RP are "optimized" for RF lens backfocal distances, which would be most critical on lenses of under about 35mm or 50mm focal length. I have no doubt that is the case. But what I've yet to really dig into, is if the R or RP (and really, just the R at this point, since the RP is goin' back) are going to show some issues with my short focal length EF lenses. You really don't see much about that, but it seems a logical extension of Canon Japan saying what they did about optimizing the microlenses. I asked CUSA about it, and they beat around the bush, saying that the sensors were absolutely not the same as the 5D mkIV and 6D mkII regardless of microlens design. Maybe they didn't get the memo? Then instead of addressing possible EF lens quality issues on the R/RP sensors, the canned response of "EF lenses are fully *operational* on RF camera bodies with the adapter". Time will tell.... and not to waste too much more, back to the yard work, already in progress!


My eyes are at 8 diopter, so when someone complains about how something works with glasses I listen!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 3, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> My eyes are at 8 diopter, so when someone complains about how something works with glasses I listen!


Wow, I'd have likely given up on using a EVF, even with glasses, you are likely having a struggle. I have a shade that fits over the LCD on my 5D MK IV which makes it semi usable in sunlight and much easier to see everything than using my glasses thru the VF. Unfortunately, it does not fit on my R due to the eyepiece design, and likely the spacing of it to the LCD in any event. I do find the EVF usable, but am not in love with it, its barely functional, so if the RP is the same as Sony's, that may not be a good thing, but for the price, I'd try it. I have not been in to my local store to see the RP. They match B&H prices if they are less.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 3, 2019)

Ken Rockwell loves the viewfinder as well as the RP in general https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/rp.htm and prefers it to the R.


----------



## Pape (Mar 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Ken Rockwell loves the viewfinder as well as the RP in general https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/rp.htm and prefers it to the R.


Yep it could work more smoothly when same digic 8 processor but only half of resolultion.
Less lag ,and faster wake up. +all other functions performed same time will be faster cause less processor use for wiefinder.
smaller fps and huge buffer gives processor better chanse work with viewfinder too.
I dont know anything about this matter,but i got feeling most of eye straining is lagging jerking viewfinder?
i never used any electric viewfinder


----------



## AlanF (Mar 3, 2019)

The evf of the RP seemed fine to me when I looked through it with the RF 24-105, which focussed very quickly. I use an evf with my Sony RX10IV and find it perfectly fine for short periods, but I have to use my binoculars for prolonged viewing of birds and animals whereas with my DSLRs I can dispense with the bins and use the camera as an approximately x8 scope. I'll take my 100-400mm II into the camera shop tomorrow to see how it performs on the RP for AF and image through the evf. I have a very good relationship with the store owner and staff and they don't mind me trying lenses and bodies as I do purchase from them and help them in other ways.


----------



## mangobutter (Mar 4, 2019)

Boudreaux&Thibodeaux said:


> The diopter adjustment was fine. Brightness/contrast maybe a little more "contrasty" than the R, but I'd have to A/B compare. Could have been the store lighting. Brightness was ok for the store at least. Had a LOT of trouble seeing the corners. With the 5DmkIII I can see the whole screen with my glasses on. This was very much not the case with the RP. With the RP, it was like my eye had to dance around under the shower to get wet (visually speaking). I'd be using the EVF better than half the time, as I tend to shoot in full daylight.
> 
> Canon once made a do-hickey for the 5DmkII that changed the viewfinder image, allowing a smaller but entire screen to be seen at once, and I've got one. Works ok, pretty well in fact. But, that won't do with the RP, as the detail on the screen is pretty small to begin with. I'm thinking I remember seeing an adjustment for on screen display sizes from reading the manual, but I could be confused on that. Either way, Canon doesn't offer that type of eyepiece correction for the RP (at least not right now).
> 
> ...



I know what you mean about stealth. The R can never be stealth. For that, I got a Fuji XT20. Very very powerful sensor in that thing... very. powerful. I actually ran some preliminary tests and found more detail with the XT20 sensor than the R sensor mounting my 16-35L w/ a focal reducer on the Fuji. Same shot, fuji had slightly more detail. Anyway going on a tangent here. My point is FF canon can't really be stealth. 

I have the 40 2.8 on my R as well. with the adapter it makes the whole setup kinda big. Such a great lens though. really good 3D pop when used wide open.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 4, 2019)

I tried the RP today, wearing my glasses. The evf was quite acceptable and there were no problems whatsoever viewing the corners. I was using a 100-400mm with TCs. Not nearly as good as the ovf on my 5DSR, but perfectly useable.


----------



## Boudreaux&Thibodeaux (Mar 19, 2019)

To me, the R vs RP is night and day, but again.... my glasses, my face, my nose, my eyes.


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 20, 2019)

Am I the only person who actually LIKES the RP? 
I just got mine today. I wear glasses, and am finding the viewfinder fine - Same as my 5D4 for viewing - Maybe slightly better than the 5D4, I need to 'move my head' around a little less to see everything. I'd expect them to be almost identical, 5d4 is (I think), .71 vs .70 magnification on the R.

Of course it's not as good as an OVF, but certainly better than the M5 and x-e3 I'd been using before as the 'small travel' kit. It's better than I'd been expecting, and when comparing in the store, I didn't even notice a difference between the R and RP. (Maybe because I didn't think to look for one, and wasn't in an environment that I'm more likely to notice the resolution improvement)

If you're wondering why I chose RP over R, 3 main reasons:

I have a 5D4, the R didn't really give enough reason to use it instead.
RP is just that bit smaller and lighter, when you're using the RF 35 (once you put on the bigger lenses, that size advantage disappears of course)
A LOT cheaper - Means I could get the RP + RF 24-105 for the same price as the R body. Glass is forever. A first gen body is going to be replaced in two years by a RP2 that is even cheaper, with the specs of the R. And I'm really waiting for a full 5D4 replacement before spending serious $$
After playing a little, I'm starting to suspect that I'm going to be picking up the RP+ RF35 a lot more often than I'm reaching for the 5D4 + 35L, or the fuji x-e3 + 35

It's just struck that right balance (for me  ), and I'm liking it a lot from first impressions, despite the limitations. The next few weeks will tell me more.

(edit: corrected EVF to OVF)


----------



## Pape (Mar 20, 2019)

RP seems work good here . On indoors it seems bit strain eyes, i guess cause so bright when exposed right.
I dont think extra sharpness would bring any extra benefit . It isnt as sharp as optical viewfinder but i see good when its focused.
you never tried another RP maybe there was something wrong on it ?
but yeah my eye glasses arent so thick. cant imagine problems peoples with really thick ones get.
viewfinder gets little lag when shooting ,but doesnt all mirrorless get?
I really like RP too .nothing bad to say so far.


----------



## Pape (Mar 20, 2019)

i hope it works for china face ,big market place


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 20, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Am I the only person who actually LIKES the RP?
> I just got mine today. I wear glasses, and am finding the viewfinder fine - Same as my 5D4 for viewing - Maybe slightly better than the 5D4, I need to 'move my head' around a little less to see everything. I'd expect them to be almost identical, 5d4 is (I think), .71 vs .70 magnification on the R.
> 
> Of course it's not as good as an OVF, but certainly better than the M5 and x-e3 I'd been using before as the 'small travel' kit. It's better than I'd been expecting, and when comparing in the store, I didn't even notice a difference between the R and RP. (Maybe because I didn't think to look for one, and wasn't in an environment that I'm more likely to notice the resolution improvement)
> ...



I rented the RP + RF24-105 + RF50 this week through the 'Test a lens' thing Canon has going in the Netherland, no rental fees, only a 10% deposit. My biggest complaint so far is that with heavy lenses like the RF50 the bottom of the grip creates a hotspot on my hand just below my ring finger. The EG-E1 grip should arrive tomorrow, I'm hoping that helps since I don't have other issues with the RP.


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 20, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> My biggest complaint so far is that with heavy lenses like the RF50 the bottom of the grip creates a hotspot on my hand just below my ring finger. The EG-E1 grip should arrive tomorrow, I'm hoping that helps since I don't have other issues with the RP.



I hear you on this, I had the same problem after holding with the 24-105 for a while. Grip helps a lot, though cancels some of the size advantages. At least Canon are providing it for free at the moment, and they recognise at launch that it can be a problem, and made it a personal choice for us. Compactness for the small lenses, and more comfort when welding bigger lenses when the size advantage no longer exists.

I think Canon is bloody brilliant


----------



## Pape (Mar 20, 2019)

I never shoot with one hand so no that problem 
I dont know do you really need those heavy lenses with 26mpixel full frame . 
but yeah if you plan upgrade to 70mpix camera later


----------



## Act444 (Mar 21, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Am I the only person who actually LIKES the RP?
> I just got mine today. I wear glasses, and am finding the viewfinder fine - Same as my 5D4 for viewing - Maybe slightly better than the 5D4, I need to 'move my head' around a little less to see everything. I'd expect them to be almost identical, 5d4 is (I think), .71 vs .70 magnification on the R.
> 
> Of course it's not as good as an OVF, but certainly better than the M5 and x-e3 I'd been using before as the 'small travel' kit. It's better than I'd been expecting, and when comparing in the store, I didn't even notice a difference between the R and RP. (Maybe because I didn't think to look for one, and wasn't in an environment that I'm more likely to notice the resolution improvement)
> ...



Thanks for the perspective from a fellow 5D4 owner...

I have not seen the RP in person but I have played with the original R. Still think the price is a little high for what it offers, but the RP seems more reasonably priced in comparison. I just wish there were enough smaller RF lenses - the 35 is nice but would be nice to have a 50 or 85 to go with it, and perhaps a compact 24-70 zoom? The size advantage vanishes once you have to mount these monsters of lenses onto it...


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 22, 2019)

Act444 said:


> Thanks for the perspective from a fellow 5D4 owner...
> 
> I have not seen the RP in person but I have played with the original R. Still think the price is a little high for what it offers, but the RP seems more reasonably priced in comparison. I just wish there were enough smaller RF lenses - the 35 is nice but would be nice to have a 50 or 85 to go with it, and perhaps a compact 24-70 zoom? The size advantage vanishes once you have to mount these monsters of lenses onto it...



Pretty much it exactly. With the compact 35, it's a light walk around/street combo. I also bought the RF 24-104, and it's a LOT bulkier - But still, that RP + 24-105 manages to be noticeably more compact than the 5D4 + EF 24-105 version. It's manages to shave off enough weight that my small backpack that would fit the the 5D4 and one lens can now fit the RP + RF 24-105 and one other small lens.

If I'm doing more serious trip where I'd want to take a wide angle, a telephoto, the EF 35L (and maybe a normal zoom) - well, at that point I may as well just bring the 5D4. (or a R, I guess)

For a casual weekend away, or walk the streets, it's compelling, especially given the price and size. You might find that one of the 'missing features' is critical to you, but for that stuff, I still have my 5D4. I guess another way to put it is: Will I now sell my 5D4? Definitely not. But will I pick up the 5D4 and fuji x-e3 a _lot_ less? Yeap. And I'm now very curious about what a RP v2 will bring.


----------



## JPAZ (Mar 22, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Am I the only person who actually LIKES the RP?
> ................. despite the limitations. The next few weeks will tell me more.



I'm another 5DIV + RP person. Perspective: my "backup" or secondary body had been an M5. That was a good camera and was smaller but it, of necessity, needed EF-M lenses or and adapter to use EF (which also eliminated any size advantage). The sensor on the RP is, IMHO; better than the M; the noise is less than the M; the controls are more like my DSLR than was the M; the EVF (at least for me) is better than the M. What I give up is the size is larger than the M. Yes, the RF 24-105 is bigger but since this is not my primary camera at this point, I am enjoying the RP and its output much more than the M5. I can bring it as a secondary body with my stable of EF lenses or can use it as the only camera body I bring for many things. I'm thinking that the RF 24-105 + EF 16-35 + EF 70-200L f/4 IS and an EF-RF adapter makes a pretty good kit with the RP.

Who knows, maybe some day, I'll move entirely from the DSLR to a mirrorless setup. I am just not there yet.


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 22, 2019)

JPAZ said:


> I'm another 5DIV + RP person. Perspective: my "backup" or secondary body had been an M5.



My M5 was traded in for the RP 
In the end, it wasn't quite pocketable even with the 22mm, so it ended up being for many practical purposes much the same size as the RP.


----------



## Labdoc (Mar 23, 2019)

Got the RP yesterday, getting used to the EVF but so far I like it. Impressed at how such a small light camera can shoot FF. Looking forward to doing some traveling with it.


----------

