# Come play with the Canon EOS R RAW files



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 9, 2018)

> Jared Polin from FroKnowsPhoto has converted 8 CR3 RAW files to DNG for you to play with. Currently, no Adobe products support the RAW from the Canon EOS R, but that will obviously change closer to the ship date next month.
> The RAW files are split between two zip files for you to download.
> EOS R RAW 1
> EOS R RAW 2
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 9, 2018)

Anyone know why the change from cr2 to cr3? What new information is in there?


----------



## elephant-19210 (Sep 9, 2018)

That's really-really good. Skintones are way better than Sony's, and generally the colours are quite well balanced for a digital camera. Here are both pictures processed with Kodak Portra 400 profile from RNI Films CC for Adobe Lightroom:


----------



## elephant-19210 (Sep 9, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Anyone know why the change from cr2 to cr3? What new information is in there?



To the best of my knowledge it is mainly about a new data compression algorithm


----------



## padam (Sep 9, 2018)

elephant-19210 said:


> To the best of my knowledge it is mainly about a new data compression algorithm


Yes, it was introduced with the EOS M50 and the Digic 8 processor, and now you can choose between lossy and lossless compression.

You can think of it as a much more effective way of saving space as opposed to a smaller RAW file with less megapixels, which looses a bit of dynamic range.

From what I've seen so far, unless you zoom in to like 300% and push the shadows to absurd levels, you can't tell any difference. At all.
But the Sony cameras were heavily criticised when they didn't have only had lossy compression instead of lossless, and they still only have uncompressed as the other option (very big files).


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 9, 2018)

I wonder if they’ve found a way to capitalize on the extra dynamic range of the dual pixels that was discussed a while back in regards to the 5D IV


----------



## Ampiku (Sep 9, 2018)

The 28-70 shows serious purple fringing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 9, 2018)

DPR is using a beta of ACR 11 for their raw images, I don't know if it can be publicly downloaded or just for a select few.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 9, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> DPR is using a beta of ACR 11 for their raw images, I don't know if it can be publicly downloaded or just for a select few.


Probably a closed Beta with select media outlets getting it before hand to complete launchday reviews.


----------



## miketcool (Sep 9, 2018)

Ampiku said:


> The 28-70 shows serious purple fringing.



What? Where? All the shots look clean to me and there are 4 lenses used with two of them being EF glass.


----------



## cgc (Sep 9, 2018)

I have measured the dynamic range from the RAWs. It seems that the EOS R exactly matches the 5D4 performance, except at ISO 100, where it has around 0.2 EV less dynamic range compared to 5D4. Maybe not that bad taking into account that the sensor is now permanently switched on. EDIT: that could merely be related to sample variation (I just have seen that the 5D4 analyzed also showed 0.2 EV less DR in some files).

Here it follows the results, in the same units used by DXO (normalized). Between parenthesis, for comparison, the values from the 5D4 (got using exactly the same measurement procedure from this forum post, with this data).

*ISO 100*
*FRO_0007 - 13.46 EV (13.60)
FRO_0150 - 13.25 EV (13.61)
FRO_0181 - 13.42 EV (13.61)*

*ISO 250
FRO_0078 - 12.91 EV*

*ISO 400
FRO_0230 - 12.99 EV (12.99)*

*ISO 3200
FRO_0201 - 10.97 EV (10.98)*

*ISO 6400
FRO_0362 - 10.13 EV (10.24)*

*ISO 10000*
*FRO_0380 - 9.48 EV*

Since likely both cameras also share the same physical base ISO (the real ISO related to the labeled ISO 100) the comparison is fair.

The ISO 100 and 6400 pictures were underexposed, but that has been accounted for (assumed always a max saturation of 16383). These results are from the green channel (the EOS R has different read noise in each channel, just as the 5D4 did, likely due to some white balance correction done in the RAWs, which Canon never did in the past and neither has done in the 1DX2 -at least to this degree-).

The EOS R has a "masked" left area (the photodetectors at the left not exposed to the light) of 144 pixels width, compared to 136 in the 5D4. Same for the top (46 compared to 42). So maybe this sensor could be a new design (with similar technology, though). For those that have not heard about them, these extra pixels are not used by all manufacturers, but are a good habit from Canon, because allow good raw converters to improve the noise characteristics.

The 6D2 achieves 11.90 EV of dynamic range at ISO 100 with this same test. So Canon continues 1.55 EV above the old tech, but still 1.45 EV under my A7R3 results (14.85 EV). Come on Canon... you have done only just half of the job!. Meanwhile Sony did upped their performance (the A7R2 topped at 13.90 EV, same sensor as A7R3 but with poorer electronics).

For those interested, these results can be obtanined by downloading this tool and running e.g.:

C:\> dcraw -E -4 -j -t 0 -s all FRO_0007.dng
C:\> hraw mskstats -i FRO_0007_0.pgm -m 144 46 -c G
ReadNoise=2.73998 [email protected]=12.4628 [email protected]=13.4246 file { FRO_0007_0.pgm }
image { mean=654.274 min=489 max=15979 } left mask { mean=511.006 min=491 max=531 crop=68x4492+2+50 }

(to know the width/height of the masked areas, a trick is to edit the pgm with gimp and boost the brightness to 125 and contrast to 124).


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2018)

miketcool said:


> What? Where? All the shots look clean to me and there are 4 lenses used with two of them being EF glass.



He's talking about the computer screen, probably. Uncorrected, there is visible chromatic aberration. However, a backlit LCD against a black bezel is as high contrast as you'll ever get, so this is a worst-case scenario (just try it with your cameras and lenses). But also, there is correctible and uncorrectable CA, and there is no lens profile for 28-70 yet (obviously). Still using default CA correction in ACR, with no other fussing, makes this pretty decent. 

I don't think it's "serious purple fringing". An EF 50/1.4 would show much, much worse CA.


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2018)

The skin tones on the portrait are really nice. The girl in the bathing suit running on the beach is also a great shot and shows a great exposure using a 70-200/2.8 at 1/5000.

Thanks for sharing. These are more interesting (and better) sample photos than we usually get pre-release!


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 9, 2018)

miketcool said:


> What? Where? All the shots look clean to me and there are 4 lenses used with two of them being EF glass.


Co ask. Where?


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Anyone know why the change from cr2 to cr3? What new information is in there?



I assume it's similar to M50's CR3. Lossless or nearly lossless raw compression is a big thing, for me. I am not fond of Sony's compressed raw, where much information is discarded and you lose a some of the reason you'd use a Sony (a great sensor). On the other hand, I'm not fond of every original file from the camera being fifty to a hundred megabytes either.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 9, 2018)

elephant-19210 said:


> That's really-really good. Skintones are way better than Sony's, and generally the colours are quite well balanced for a digital camera. Here are both pictures processed with Kodak Portra 400 profile from RNI Films CC for Adobe Lightroom:
> 
> View attachment 180267
> View attachment 180268


This is just Canon RF 28-70mm F2, a zoom lens. Look at the Bokeh. It is insanely amazing. I can’t believe it. Is this really the zoom?


----------



## miketcool (Sep 9, 2018)

Talys said:


> He's talking about the computer screen, probably. Uncorrected, there is visible chromatic aberration. However, a backlit LCD against a black bezel is as high contrast as you'll ever get, so this is a worst-case scenario (just try it with your cameras and lenses). But also, there is correctible and uncorrectable CA, and there is no lens profile for 28-70 yet (obviously). Still using default CA correction in ACR, with no other fussing, makes this pretty decent.
> 
> I don't think it's "serious purple fringing". An EF 50/1.4 would show much, much worse CA.



I have these loaded in Capture One with no correction and the chromatic aberration is not there. You really have to boost the saturation of the image (I used several layers) to get a faint line along the screen. The shot is wide open at 6400 ISO of an LCD screen. This is about as harsh as a situation gets for fringing and the raw image looks great without correction.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 9, 2018)

Canon RF 50mm F1.2 and 28-70mm F2 are insanely exciting to me. I am sold.

When will Zeiss commit to Canon RF? Like Zeiss 20mm F1.4 Manual only?

I will wait for Canon RF 85mm F1.2 and 35mm F1.2 after the above.


----------



## Igor Trifonov (Sep 9, 2018)

I really wish they will announce a new EOS Rs with dual slots and 10fps, then I'll def will get a fantastic 28-70 lens and will get rid of my 24-70 2.8 ii and 35mm 1.4 ii


----------



## Act444 (Sep 9, 2018)

The 50 1.2 is the most impressive of the lot to me. Almost makes me want to get an R camera just so I can actually take advantage of a decent 50mm lens for once...

The 28-70 appeared a bit softer to my eye at 70mm f2 than the 50 did at 1.2 (!). 28mm f2 on the other hand was fairly crisp. I'd be curious to see how the performance at 70mm f2.8 stacks up with the 24-70 II at that setting...


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 9, 2018)

10,000 ISO... a bit grainy, but looks usable! impressive.


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 9, 2018)

cgc said:


> I have measured the dynamic range from the RAWs. It seems that the EOS R exactly matches the 5D4 performance, except at ISO 100, where it has around 0.2 EV less dynamic range compared to 5D4. Maybe not that bad taking into account that the sensor is now permanently switched on. EDIT: that could merely be related to sample variation (I just have seen that the 5D4 analyzed also showed 0.2 EV less DR in some files).
> 
> Here it follows the results, in the same units used by DXO (normalized). Between parenthesis, for comparison, the values from the 5D4 (got using exactly the same measurement procedure from this forum post, with this data).
> 
> ...



Helpful information. Thanks for the analysis. 

Good to see that this was not a step backward but disappointing that there was no improvement. I guess that was to be expected based on the release of the Mark IV and leverage of that sensor in other recent bodies. That still is a significant improvement over my existing 5dMIII and 5DSR dynamic range. If the future pro body has similar improvements in DR or better I will likely replace one of both of those bodies. 

I too would really like to see Canon take the final step and close the DR gap with Sony sensor while maintaining all the other elements that make Canon great.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 10, 2018)

Oh hey that's co- eww, Jared Polin? Don't give that gibbering eejit the attention. Have some dignity.


----------



## michaelichiro (Sep 10, 2018)

cgc said:


> I have measured the dynamic range from the RAWs. It seems that the EOS R exactly matches the 5D4 performance, except at ISO 100, where it has around 0.2 EV less dynamic range compared to 5D4. Maybe not that bad taking into account that the sensor is now permanently switched on. EDIT: that could merely be related to sample variation (I just have seen that the 5D4 analyzed also showed 0.2 EV less DR in some files).
> 
> Here it follows the results, in the same units used by DXO (normalized). Between parenthesis, for comparison, the values from the 5D4 (got using exactly the same measurement procedure from this forum post, with this data).
> 
> ...



Nice work! Thank you for the test!


----------



## preppyak (Sep 10, 2018)

Talys said:


> Still using default CA correction in ACR, with no other fussing, makes this pretty decent.
> 
> I don't think it's "serious purple fringing". An EF 50/1.4 would show much, much worse CA.


Ha, anyone who calls that serious purple fringing has never used an 85mm f/1.8 in bright sunlight at f/1.8. As you showed, thats easily corrected


----------



## sunnyboy (Sep 10, 2018)

Not sure why are there people still impress about the noise level ? It just almost same as 5dmk4.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 10, 2018)

Act444 said:


> The 50 1.2 is the most impressive of the lot to me. Almost makes me want to get an R camera just so I can actually take advantage of a decent 50mm lens for once...
> 
> The 28-70 appeared a bit softer to my eye at 70mm f2 than the 50 did at 1.2 (!). 28mm f2 on the other hand was fairly crisp. I'd be curious to see how the performance at 70mm f2.8 stacks up with the 24-70 II at that setting...


That’s my idea also, put an add up for my 1dx2 and placed and order on an R and 50 f1.2, I’ve been dreaming about that 50 since the first day I bought the EF version and was seriously disappointed ...


----------



## Viggo (Sep 10, 2018)

So... is he allergic to place focus correctly? Basically all of them are off... And what's up with the girl in the swimsuit running? it looks like focus actually hit, but it looks terrible...


----------



## ykn123 (Sep 10, 2018)

The R - i really wish it had 8/10fps in Servo and a joystick (but need to see whether Tocu&Drag AF and the Mn Touch bar are good alternatives) - all other things that people complain about like IBIS and single slot and 4K crp are fine with me. The lenses alone are very tempting.


----------



## rsdofny (Sep 10, 2018)

I am blown away by how clear the photo captures the reflection of the beach and the photographer. Is it normal to see the tips of the 2 eyebrows to be out of focus and the eyelashes on the non-focused eye is in focus again?


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 10, 2018)

ykn123 said:


> The R - i really wish it had* 8/10fps in Servo* and a joystick (but need to see whether Tocu&Drag AF and the Mn Touch bar are good alternatives) - all other things that people complain about like IBIS and single slot and *4K crp *are fine with me. The lenses alone are very tempting.



These two limitations have the same cause (sensor readout speed). So in fact you very much want FF 4K .


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2018)

rsdofny said:


> I am blown away by how clear the photo captures the reflection of the beach and the photographer. Is it normal to see the tips of the 2 eyebrows to be out of focus and the eyelashes on the non-focused eye is in focus again?


Yes.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 10, 2018)

Longer hands on video posted today:


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 10, 2018)

Act444 said:


> The 50 1.2 is the most impressive of the lot to me. Almost makes me want to get an R camera just so I can actually take advantage of a decent 50mm lens for once...
> 
> The 28-70 appeared a bit softer to my eye at 70mm f2 than the 50 did at 1.2 (!). 28mm f2 on the other hand was fairly crisp. I'd be curious to see how the performance at 70mm f2.8 stacks up with the 24-70 II at that setting...


Great Zooms don’t quite have the IQ of great primes although they can get pretty close in the center of the frame. Also, it’s hard to draw conclusion from just a few uncontrolled images. Fun to speculate!


----------



## tmc784 (Sep 10, 2018)

I have 6L lenses, why should I spend more $$$$ to buy a M camera and adapters for my L lenses ? I just wait for 5DV


----------



## juan55 (Sep 10, 2018)

Did anyone try to play with the shadows and recover them with the photo of the beach FRO_0007 and the computer FR0_0362 ? Playing in PS with the DNG seems not to recover them or work well. It looks like the noise is gorgeous after +3EV even at ISO 100 . There is not comparation with the 5D MkIV RAW where you can rise/recover the shadows a lot better.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2018)

juan55 said:


> Did anyone try to play with the shadows and recover them with the photo of the beach FRO_0007 and the computer FR0_0362 ? Playing in PS with the DNG seems not to recover them or work well.


I agree, I actually posted the linked images on another thread, that predated this one, and I said basically the same thing.

There are many things to like about this system, improvements in DR are not one.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 10, 2018)

Viggo said:


> That’s my idea also, put an add up for my 1dx2 and placed and order on an R and 50 f1.2, I’ve been dreaming about that 50 since the first day I bought the EF version and was seriously disappointed ...



Not too pleased about not being able to use that 50 with my 5D4 but it is what it is. 



BeenThere said:


> Great Zooms don’t quite have the IQ of great primes although they can get pretty close in the center of the frame. *Also, it’s hard to draw conclusion from just a few uncontrolled images.* Fun to speculate!



True that. Highly awaiting more samples, resolution tests, and an update to DPP to actually see what the RAWs are made of...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 10, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I agree, I actually posted the linked images on another thread, that predated this one, and I said basically the same thing.
> 
> There are many things to like about this system, improvements in DR are not one.



I wonder if Canon have made the same 'developments' to the 5DIV sensor that they made for the 6D2 sensor compared to 6D. That had a mixed bag of comments and it took some while for the positives (few that they were) to start emerging.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I wonder if Canon have made the same 'developments' to the 5DIV sensor that they made for the 6D2 sensor compared to 6D. That had a mixed bag of comments and it took some while for the positives (few that they were) to start emerging.


To be sure the 5D MkIV, for all the complaints from testers, is a very good sensor with a lot more potential, but I don't think the R developers had the brief to mess with the sensor, just everything else!


----------



## Act444 (Sep 11, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Longer hands on video posted today:



Thanks. Interesting, shows you never really know until you pick up a camera and start shooting with it "how it really is".

I agree that the DSLR's days are numbered...but personally, my experience with the M cameras tells me MILC still has a ways to go until it can match the speed, responsiveness and tracking ability of a DSLR. Early reviewers keep saying the R is a quick focuser...we'll see, I've had times where my M6 would fail to lock focus even with plenty of light available (never had that issue with my 5D). But the general direction that photography seems to be moving in is undeniable at this point...

One area of AF where MILC *DOES* hold an advantage though is that the "always live view mode" means no worrying about microadjustment of lenses. That is nice, I will admit. It is frustrating when certain focus points are dead on while others aren't (this seems especially true with my 5DSR). If this new R has at least got the focus accuracy down, even if tracking is slow, that is a major step in the right direction.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2018)

tmc784 said:


> I have 6L lenses, why should I spend more $$$$ to buy a M camera and adapters for my L lenses ? I just wait for 5DV


Why would you consider a "M"? The thread is discussing the "R" camera.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> To be sure the 5D MkIV, for all the complaints from testers, is a very good sensor with a lot more potential, but I don't think the R developers had the brief to mess with the sensor, just everything else!



I think they did some tinkering with the microlenses in order to boost light at the edges and corners, and to help with autofocus away from the center. Canon had some patents where they discussed the issue.


----------



## tmc784 (Sep 11, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Why would you consider a "M"? The thread is discussing the "R" camera.


M= mirrorless 
R= no different


----------



## masterpix (Sep 11, 2018)

Those are great pictures. But I wonder, since it is the same sensor, many of the lenses used are EF and the camera body is not that smaller in respect to the 5D/6D, what is the REAL advantage in mirror-less cameras? Apart from the mirror part, I don't really see a big difference between them and SLRs. The noise reduction is (in higher IOS) so good that I question the need for f2 or less lenses (which are much heavier - which contradict the idea of light weight gear), depth of filed is much greater issue in high megapixel images where every non-focused area is very evident.

What does strikes me in those images is that they reveal EVERYTHING, even the little spec of "black" left of the mascara after a dip in the water.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Sep 11, 2018)

From what I can see no pictures from the 24-105 which would be the only lens I could afford. So far I am not impressed by those pictures.


----------



## melgross (Sep 11, 2018)

masterpix said:


> Those are great pictures. But I wonder, since it is the same sensor, many of the lenses used are EF and the camera body is not that smaller in respect to the 5D/6D, what is the REAL advantage in mirror-less cameras? Apart from the mirror part, I don't really see a big difference between them and SLRs. The noise reduction is (in higher IOS) so good that I question the need for f2 or less lenses (which are much heavier - which contradict the idea of light weight gear), depth of filed is much greater issue in high megapixel images where every non-focused area is very evident.
> 
> What does strikes me in those images is that they reveal EVERYTHING, even the little spec of "black" left of the mascara after a dip in the water.


I expect, in the long run, that mirrorless will be more reliable due to fewer moving mechanical parts. I’m not sure the models from anyone currently, will see that, because it’s all still fairly new, but ten years from now, it will be different.

It’s like SSDs. Right now, results from companies like Google, Facebook and others who give yearly drive reliability reports, show that SSDs are about as reliable as HDDs, on average. Unexpected for some people, but true. That won’t be truer sometime in the future though.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 11, 2018)

tmc784 said:


> I have 6L lenses, why should I spend more $$$$ to buy a M camera and adapters for my L lenses ? I just wait for 5DV




Because it can do things the 5D5 cannot. Even if the 5D5 gets a tilt-screen and the EOS R fancy control bar, it will not get the following from the EOS R platform:

A $2299 asking price
Have AF points all over the frame when using the viewfinder
Have a truly silent shutter you can use through the viewfinder
The ability to rear CPL / ND some difficult-to-filter EF lenses
Adapt a boatload of other mounts' lenses
Offer control ring functionality on lenses (including your EF lenses)
Be able to use the sexy new RF 50L or 28-70 f/2L (Canon _might_ deliver those in EF someday, but you never know)
Manual focusing screens to do what the EOS R can do with manual focus lenses through the viewfinder (could be wrong, but Canon has purged those from the 6D and 5D lines of late)
That may not be a good enough list for you, but it will be for some.

Also, your EF lenses will work brilliantly on the EOS M, and unless you are a real tinkerer, you only need one adaptor. You aren't going to buy one for each lens -- you'll buy one and just leave it on your EOS R.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 11, 2018)

Bill Claff has updated PTP to include EOS R now:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon EOS R

(EOS R is the very last Canon EOS entry on the list, right before the Powershots come up)




Note there is a disclaimer for the Nikon Z7 (also listed there): "The anomolies at ISO 125 and ISO 160 are not likely to be meaningful." I'm assuming the same statement may apply for the EOS R as well.

It's just the read noise for now, so the oft referenced DR plot isn't up yet. But I'll be brave and presume base ISO DR will highly resemble Canon's other 30 MP FF sensor. 

- A


----------



## magarity (Sep 11, 2018)

Meanwhile Microsoft has yet to update the Windows codecs to display the CR2 files from the 77D generation. Might be 2030 before they get around to CR3.


----------



## suburbia (Sep 12, 2018)

melgross said:


> I expect, in the long run, that mirrorless will be more reliable due to fewer moving mechanical parts. I’m not sure the models from anyone currently, will see that, because it’s all still fairly new, but ten years from now, it will be different.
> 
> It’s like SSDs. Right now, results from companies like Google, Facebook and others who give yearly drive reliability reports, show that SSDs are about as reliable as HDDs, on average. Unexpected for some people, but true. That won’t be truer sometime in the future though.



Well there is the fundamental technical flaw with SLRs, that of a giant mirror box between the sensor and lens. In theory quality lenses should be easier to make and lighter for mirrorless camera which should equal cheaper but I guess this is a first round to scoop up the R&D costs, but we are here getting lighter and smaller for at least equal quality.

I thought this article was clear https://techreport.com/review/34027/why-mirrorless-cameras-are-taking-over-the-world


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 12, 2018)

suburbia said:


> I thought this article was clear https://techreport.com/review/34027/why-mirrorless-cameras-are-taking-over-the-world



It's clear _speculation, _anyway.

The notion that - of itself - simplicity will win over complexity, is fundamentally flawed: a horse and cart is _a lot_ less complex than a modern car; and an abacus much simpler than a laptop - yet look where we are.

MILC needs a USP far more compelling than "easier to make", and it currently doesn't have it.


----------



## melgross (Sep 12, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> It's clear _speculation, _anyway.
> 
> The notion that - of itself - simplicity will win over complexity, is fundamentally flawed: a horse and cart is _a lot_ less complex than a modern car; and an abacus much simpler than a laptop - yet look where we are.
> 
> MILC needs a USP far more compelling than "easier to make", and it currently doesn't have it.



It’s interesting though. When Apple came up with the Mac, people howled. Way back, I used to teach PC DOS part time, for fun. When macOS came out, people looked for the system config. files, and couldn’t find them. They would yell at how childish the computer was because they couldn’t edit them (while totally screwing up their machine, and calling me to fix it, but some people never learn). But the machine was even more complex. It hid it from the user though, which had it seeming to be simpler, and easier.

The thing is that these more modern cameras are much more complex in software and electronics. They’re even more complex than older, more mechanical models, but seem simpler. Apparent simplicity doesn’t mean operational simplicity, unfortunately, as computerized cameras, as we’ve found out, are ridiculously complex to understand, with far more “features” in the menus that most of us will ever need. Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be done.

Mirrorless isn’t simpler at all. It just shifts a necessary, though the lens optical viewing to an electronic, computerized one. The first camera from Canon doesnrvhave all the features of the 5Dmk IV, as some wanted, and expected, but that’s just a particular model version thing.


----------

