# DPReview: Canon EOS R vs Nikon Z 6 vs Sony a7 III, which is best?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 17, 2018)

> The inevitable comparisons between the “Big 3” full frame mirrorless cameras have happened at DPreview, where they make their pick for the best full-frame mirrorless camera for various types of photographer needs.
> *From DPReview:*
> All three cameras can produce excellent images but the Sony more readily adapts to a wider range of situations. The Nikon acquits itself well for certain types of photography, while also doing unexpectedly well at video, but the Z6 has the least dependable AF system of the trio, which counts against it. Canon has tried to make an easy-to-use camera, rather than simply mimicking its DSLRs, but, while we’re not fully convinced by the results of this first attempt, it’s still a very able camera. Read the full article
> DPReview made their pick for the best full-frame mirrorless camera for different specialities such as portrait, sports and...



Continue reading...


----------



## littleB (Dec 17, 2018)

Yeah, those DPR guys seem to be a bit more than completely biased against Canon. I remember their fabulous S. praise after their visit to Hawaii sponsored by S. We're living in an age when almost no room is available to truly unbiased reviewers, agendas dominate true opinions.


----------



## eyeheartny (Dec 17, 2018)

littleB said:


> Yeah, those DPR guys seem to be a bit more than completely biased against Canon. I remember their fabulous S. praise after their visit to Hawaii sponsored by S. We're living in an age when almost no room is available to truly unbiased reviewers, agendas dominate true opinions.



Also the lenses for the Nikon are...disappointing, to say the least.


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 17, 2018)

Nobody has an "agenda" or bias, other than that every single person who ever uses a camera—yourself included—will always have entirely subjective tastes and preferences.
Do try to remember that accusing a company or individual of being paid-off without disclosure is, in fact, illegal. Yes, even if you hide behind a forum username. If you're going to claim someone has been in some way paid-off or otherwise incentivised by one company to make negative remarks about another, you better have actual, presentable proof of your claims. And no, "but they always rate Sony highly!" is not proof of anything. (Other than that Sony do make very, very good cameras.)

Anyway.

This does not surprise me in the slightest, nor should it surprise anybody else who has used these three cameras.

1) Canon and Nikon's bodies are their first generation, while Sony are on their third. Of course Sony are going to have a more well-rounded system; they've had more time to work out the kinks.

2) When it comes to bodies without the context of their lenses, Sony's bodies _are_ the best. Nikon's Z6 feels nicer in the hand but it's still a bought-in Sony sensor with a less efficient CPU, slightly less effective IBIS, only one card slot, etc. And do we really need to spell out all the shortcomings of the EOS R? Nobody is saying it's an outright bad camera, but it doesn't take an expert or genius to spot—let alone use and experience—how much more the other two bodies offer.

3) This is the same thing that happened with the EF mount. The first EF bodies _sucked_. They were totally, totally awful. Every other camera body at the time was built better and worked better. But the brand-new EF _lenses_ were way ahead of anything anyone else offered, so Canon took over the market, got a massive lead over everyone else, and hasn't been remotely challenged since. (Yes, I know some people like to think Sony are nipping at Canon's heels or have already taken over, but the actual fact of the matter is that Canon lead in global sales by miles.) The same thing goes for RF. Yes, the EOS R body is a mid-level body and not even as fully-featured as other mid-level bodies, and though the sensor is more than capable for most uses, the processor is a little underpowered and so when it comes to benchmarks, other systems will beat the EOS R in IQ. But other systems don't have a 28-70 f/2 or a 50mm f/1.2 (at least not with autofocus), and their "kit" zooms aren't a patch on the RF 24-105, either. No system adapts older lenses as well as the EOS R, either, giving it immediate access to a larger range of lenses than either of the other two systems.


Y'all shouldn't be so precious about the Canon bodies, let alone be throwing out libellous comments. It's absolutely okay to acknowledge that Canon's bodies are very rarely the best bodies of their class/type. Where Canon has always lead is with the lenses, and if you really cared that much about photography you'd know that the lens matters more than the body.
So, yes, when comparing bodies, Sony's absolutely is the best. Nikon's Z6 is flawed but still a very good first try. The EOS R is even more flawed but for a first body for a brand new system it's still acceptably capable. Factor in the native lenses and the EOS R draws even with Sony, in my estimation, with the Z6 behind. Then throw in adapted lens performance and I'd put the EOS R in first, especially if anybody needs really specialist glass like tilt-shifts.

Different strokes for different folks, and no system starts and ends only with the camera bodies.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 17, 2018)

I don't fault their general conclusions, but unless I'm mistaken, they make a factual misstatement when they say "Canon EF lenses work similarly well on the EOS R and on the Sony a7 III, so need not be a deciding factor in making that choice." If the one major advantage Canon has is its glass (which, for now, may be the case), they've dismissed that advantage incorrectly. Unless they know of an adapter I'm unaware of that grants similar autofocus capabilities as native Canon bodies. 

It's the sort of conclusion that a tripod photographer could make, not realizing that there are moving subjects out there too - which is a flaw you find with DPR stuff from time to time.


----------



## Nelu (Dec 17, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> So, yes, when comparing bodies, Sony's absolutely is the best. Nikon's Z6 is flawed but still a very good first try. The EOS R is even more flawed but for a first body for a brand new system it's still acceptably capable.


I don't know about that...Whenever I tried taking photos using sheet-specs darn things didn't work for me, for some reason...It must be me, I guess!


----------



## maves (Dec 17, 2018)

Whilst I've decided to skip the EOS-R, I'm really interested to see where they go with mirrorless. 

Canon have a History of releasing Pro bodies that disappoint in the spec sheet but nail it with real world performance. 

I just wish Canon had a better range of mid range primes. I moved from Nikon, but miss their 1.8G series lenses.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 17, 2018)

Just my opinion, of course, but the anti-Canon bias will no doubt hurt Canon's bottom line, and thus hurt all the Canon users - at least in the short term. If two card slots makes up for lousy ergonomics, then I guess Sony is best. If IBIS makes up for sub-par color, then I guess Sony is best. 

Dustin Abbot has a nice review, not sure if it has been linked in a thread or not:

https://dustinabbott.net/2018/12/canon-eos-r-review/

In it, he mentions some things I agree totally with:

"First of all, it feels fantastic in the hand. The grip is far and away the best that I’ve encountered so far on a mirrorless body, and I think Canon has the right idea about the size and form factor of this camera." And, "What’s also worth noting is that the design allows for adequate room for one’s knuckles between lenses and the grip – something that the a7R3 often cannot say."

Another aspect where Dustin finds Canon in the lead: "The EOS R has Canon’s fully articulating screen, which will undoubtedly make this camera a popular choice with vloggers and those that want a simple monitoring solution when facing the camera. The screen can be manipulated into a number of positions, and I find Canon’s articulating screens very useful. It is made further useful by the fact that Canon makes the best camera touchscreens in the business."

Another area that Canon is best: "If you look at the front of the camera you will notice a couple of things, including one of Canon’s most clever innovations on the EOS R. It is a shield that comes down in front of the sensor to keep dust off it when changing lenses. This purpose is served (in an inferior way) by the mirror assembly on DSLRs, but this is a cleaner solution. This has been an area of intense vulnerability for my Sony a7R3, which is seemingly in constant need of cleaning."

About the EVF: "The viewfinder on the EOS R is excellent. It has the higher 3.69 million dot resolution (like the Sony a7R3 and superior to the a73). It is clean and natural looking and a joy to use. I find the higher resolution particularly useful when magnifying an image to manually focus."

I've had a chance to look through the EVF of the 3 mentioned cameras and find the Canon to be noticeably better. 

Dustin does consider the lack of IBIS and the lack of a 2nd card slot to be a considerable negative. Like all fair reviewers, he does mention the good and the bad. But in some respects the Canon is industry leading. And - as in all things about specs - each user will have priorities, including specs that are absolutely necessary and others that are completely non needed. I would argue that DPR puts far more emphasis on specs that are considered important or necessary by a minority of users (IBIS, 2 card slots) and puts little emphasis on things that are important to far more photographers (ergonomics, color).

As in all things, each person should base their opinion on actual experience if possible. The popularity of these types of sites gives them far too much power in the industry in my opinion. That alone should make them suspect - even if their biases are only subconscious.


----------



## COBRASoft (Dec 18, 2018)

DPR's bashing on Canon has become ridiculous... If Canon is so bad, how come you see Canon a lot more in the street than Nikon and Sony combined? Because everyone is more invested in glass? I don't believe this as most shooters out there have max. 1 or 2 lenses anyway.

I believe Dustin is one of the most objective reviewers out there. Hats off to the quality he brings.


----------



## blackbox (Dec 18, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Nobody has an "agenda" or bias, other than that every single person who ever uses a camera—yourself included—will always have entirely subjective tastes and preferences.
> Do try to remember that accusing a company or individual of being paid-off without disclosure is, in fact, illegal. Yes, even if you hide behind a forum username. If you're going to claim someone has been in some way paid-off or otherwise incentivised by one company to make negative remarks about another, you better have actual, presentable proof of your claims. And no, "but they always rate Sony highly!" is not proof of anything. (Other than that Sony do make very, very good cameras.)
> 
> Anyway.
> ...


They are biased and have been for a long time. Subjectivity aside they have bashed on Canon for years which is why I among others stopped reading their site years ago.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 18, 2018)

Didn't they already do this article?


----------



## preppyak (Dec 18, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> Unless they know of an adapter I'm unaware of that grants similar autofocus capabilities as native Canon bodies.


Both the Sigma MC-11 and Metabones adapters would be more than capable of adapting Canon EF lenses to FE mount with full auto-focus at almost the same performance as on an EF body.

Not being aware of those would mean you're not very familiar with the Sony system.


----------



## snappy604 (Dec 18, 2018)

preppyak said:


> Both the Sigma MC-11 and Metabones adapters would be more than capable of adapting Canon EF lenses to FE mount with full auto-focus at almost the same performance as on an EF body.
> 
> Not being aware of those would mean you're not very familiar with the Sony system.




Yup friend moved to Sony a73 from canon and we tried a number of canon lenses and sigma with canon mounts. Seemed almost as fast as my 80d for focus. Saw some really good results out of it.

Another moved from Nikon and also very happy. I waited partially because cant afford, but partially because the R shows a lot of potential, just seemed rushed and thus capable but a bit underwhelming. Maybe new firmware fixes some, but suspect lot is on how fast they can process the gigantic amount of data it must generate now.. it was enough however to make me hopeful... seeing what new year brings.


----------



## Bentley Boy (Dec 18, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Nobody has an "agenda" or bias, other than that every single person who ever uses a camera—yourself included—will always have entirely subjective tastes and preferences.
> Do try to remember that accusing a company or individual of being paid-off without disclosure is, in fact, illegal. Yes, even if you hide behind a forum username. If you're going to claim someone has been in some way paid-off or otherwise incentivised by one company to make negative remarks about another, you better have actual, presentable proof of your claims. And no, "but they always rate Sony highly!" is not proof of anything. (Other than that Sony do make very, very good cameras.)
> 
> Anyway.
> ...


Good luck proving that defamation lawsuit, counselor. And it’s not illegal. Name calling will not land you in jail.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Didn't they already do this article?



no. But they "strongly hinted" their assessment as "foregone conclusion" in their preceding "first impressions" and "review" articles for each of the 3 camera models (A7III, Z6, R). 

Fairly strong "Anti-Canon bias" at dpr is obvious for many years, often bordering the ridiculous [eg the love for all sorts of "hipsterite/retro" stuff]. 

However, I do find the specific comparison valid. Sony A7 III is the best *universally capable* body of the 3 contenders [A7III, Z6, EOS R] with the best price/value proposition. Tehre is no denying that Canon EOS R is only a "mirrorfree 6D III with re-used 5D4 sensor", without IBIS and a flawed user interface ... at too high a price. If Canon wants to charge more, they also need to offer more capability, not less than competition. This goes for camera BODY itself, not for overall system. Of course individual mileage will vary, depending and specific needs, wants and preferences. 

SYSTEM comparison is even more individual. Obviously it mainly depends, if/what glass one already owns. 
* for "first time FF system buyers", Sony TODAY wins hands down, because they are the only ones with excellent cameras AND a reasonable lineup of native lenses immediately available. As first time buyer, would it really be smart today to buy a Canon R or Nikon Z and EF or F-lenses which will all be obsoleted shortly? No problem for imaging purposes, but economically not very smart. 
b) "happy" Canon customers with an assortment of good EF (L) glass incentive to switch brands has become much smaller now Canon has finally launched EOS R system. If possible, control G.A.S., sit tight and wait a bit more to see what R bodies and RF lenses Canon comes up with next. Unless one is really looking for a specific capability where Sony or Nikon are clearly ahead of Canon [eg 4k video].


----------



## Kit. (Dec 18, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Do try to remember that accusing a company or individual of being paid-off without disclosure is, in fact, illegal.


Is it? In which country?

Is accusing other forum members of an illegal activity also illegal in that country?


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

There is clear evidence of Sony organizing "large scale extravaganzas" in [an attempt] to influence [real and perceived] influencers. Some of those "influencers" do provide disclosure, many others do not.

As a positive example and to his credit, credibility and personal integrity, Thom Hogan goes well beyond "full disclosure" in his article on the subject: http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews.../april-june-2018-newsviews/sony-kando-20.html

Which type and amount of "lobbying" activities are legal or not varies considerably in different countries/jurisdictions. And of course it is not only Sony trying to influence and "incentivize" influencers in a number of ways.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 18, 2018)

Is anyone surprised by the DPR conclusion?

Instead of accusing DPR for beeing biased, I think it is more meaningful to question to what degree their conclusions should be relevant to you. 

I haven't visited DPR much the last 3-4 years, but when I do, I get the feeling that they haven't changed.

DPR does love specs. Much of their reviews and their final score could be written out of the spec sheet. For me, most specs doesn't matter much for what I like in a camera. Already because of this DPR's final score is pretty much irrelevant to me. 

DPR does not, when reviewing a camera, pay much attention to lenses, or the system as a whole. Canon bodies has never gotten a rewarded in a review, because Canon lenses are fantastic. To me, the Canon lenses are a very important reason to choose Canon.

And how much attention has DPR given to the potential problems/downsides of the too small APS-C lens mount that the A7 and A9 bodies are using?

DPR has when reviewing Sony mirrorless, historically speaking, been very forgiving about problems. When the camera stops working all of a sudden, and you need to take the battery out in order to make it work again, it hasn't really hurt the overall score of the camera. Those kind of problems suddenly seems to be much more of a problem after the new models has solved them.

DPR does not seem to prioritize the overall shooting experience much. Good ergonomics and ease of use, or bad ergonomics and difficult to use, does not affect their overall score very much. Basically, the quality that I find important with my Canon cameras, that the camera sort of disappear between your hands, because the camera is intuitive in use and you can concentrate on shooting, have I never seen been emphasized by DPR.

DPRs overwhelming valuation of specs, their oversights with regards to user friendliness, and their lack of viewing the camera system (lenses included) as a whole, has lead me to stop caring about their reviews.


----------



## littleB (Dec 18, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Do try to remember that accusing a company or individual of being paid-off without disclosure is, in fact, illegal.


https://m.dpreview.com/articles/430...w-i-spent-four-days-taking-pictures-in-hawaii


> *I was in Hawaii on a Sony-sponsored trip* along with a handful of other photography journalists, on Oahu for two vastly different shooting experiences: shooting pro golf with the a9, and trying out a new 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 zoom for the a6000-series.


How could the Managing Editor of DPR write anything negative about her fancy trip's sponsor?
She had so much fun, and everything was so great, so she shared that greatness. This is how this works. If someone/some company is having so much fun in a series, he could just notice less of shortcomings, and praise more of advantages.
If this gets systematic, there will be an increasing belief of greatness. This is how psychology works. 

On the other hand, back to that 'review', *slightly higher* megapixels did not have any chance against *slightly higher* DR.
Or the articulated screen does not matter, or best autofocus in class also does not matter. 
Or the natively adapted lenses do not matter.

The world is not black and white, and all three cameras have some pros and some cons. Even guys like Jared Polin admit this in their spec-reviews, but not DPR.

And guys doing real reviews, like Dustin Abbot, just use the camera, and describe their experience and the result. And Dustin relies on himself, doing all those tests and shoots. This is his opinion, and this is based not on specs.
Yes, he finds some cons at EOS R, like crop in video or the new slider control. But he also notices some pros, like ergonomics, AF, EVF, the articulating screen, etc


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> DPR does not, when reviewing a camera, pay much attention to lenses, or the system as a whole. Canon bodies has never gotten a rewarded in a review, because Canon lenses are fantastic.



yes. Very true.

As a clear and glaring example for [intentional or unintential] anti-Canon bias at dpr all DPR reviews of Canon EOS M cameras are listing "limited native lens lineup" as a "CON" in the prominent Pro/con box on the conclusion üpage of their reviews. They also seem to factor it into their %-rating as a negative ... for the camera BODY! Full access to the entire universe of Canon EF/EF-S lenses via Canon OEM adapter is totally disregarded.

EOS M50 - 2018/04 - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m50/9 - "Limited native lens selection"
EOS M5 - 2016/12 - https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m5-review/7 - "Native lens lineup is sorely lacking"
EOS M3 - 2016/08- https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m3-review/8 - "Limited Canon EF-M lens lineup"
...

"Limited native lens availability" is/was not listed as a negative for Sony cameras or Fujifilm X (in the early days when lens lineup was also limited) or Nikon Z cameras today. Yes, they are also not holding it against Canon EOS R.

But even today they are still holding it against Canon EOS M system, because it is one of the few items they had on hand to justify their very low rating for the M50. I don't accuse them of being shills in this case, but they clearly are personally enamored with Fujifilm's retro styling cameras/"hipster appeal" and Fuji crop lenses at close to FF prices. "Bang for the buck" only plays a role in their reviews if/when it suits them.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

Main culprit however are Canon themselves: their current, first EOS R body is a decent camera, but overall still a "mirrorfree EOS 6D III". Had they launched it "as is" in terms of specs and functionality but at a price commensurate with a "6D class camera" and in line with (slightly) better specced competition [Z6, A7 III] it would be a lot harder to criticize it.

EOS R at USD/€ 1799 would/should have been considered "fully competitive". EOS R at 2399 is ... too many bucks for too little bang.


And in the larger picture: Canon's pigheaded refusal to clearly communicate their future product strategy in terms of "what does it mean to you, as existing or potential customer" is increasingly hurting them. No clear statements re. DSLRs/EF, EF_S, no roadmaps for EOS M and EOS R system ... proceed at your own risk. It is not the 1970s or 1980s any longer when they could get away with their secretive, totally intransparent conduct. Luckily, today we have much more and much better information at hand. And there is much more choice. And we are less and less willing to trust Canon's marketing blather and their "nice blue eyes". Or any other company's.

Tell us, where the journey's going and we might come along. Don't tell us and we'll go elsewhere.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 18, 2018)

littleB said:


> https://m.dpreview.com/articles/430...w-i-spent-four-days-taking-pictures-in-hawaii
> 
> How could the Managing Editor of DPR write anything negative about her fancy trip's sponsor?
> She had so much fun, and everything was so great, so she shared that greatness. This is how this works. If someone/some company is having so much fun in a series, he could just notice less of shortcomings, and praise more of advantages.
> ...


On the other hand, those Hawaii photos were..... inspiring.


----------



## LesC (Dec 18, 2018)

I think what many reviewers forget is that most photographers have built up a collection of (often expensive) glass so are somewhat tied to a manufacturer. So even if the EOS R isn't as good as say the NIkon, I'd still go for the EOS R as I have the lenses to fit it. Who knows, the next EOS R may be better than the next Nikon or Sony. Having said that, I do agree it's priced a little high & I wish they'd added GPS...


----------



## edoorn (Dec 18, 2018)

about adapted lenses: try long glass (like a 500) on an A7III and I think you'll find that it will perform less well than on the R, where it's just as good or maybe even better than on a 5D IV.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 18, 2018)

blackbox said:


> They are biased and have been for a long time. Subjectivity aside they have bashed on Canon for years which is why I among others stopped reading their site years ago.


Ditto.
The features / specs or things they tend to comment on as major considerations are things that I couldn't care less about. The things that are important to me as a photographer...they skim over and give little consideration over. It's like a site written by technology fan boys. I'd rather read an issue of T3 than DPR. For all their posturing and anti-Canon spin...they have had zero impact on Canon's market share...So I can only conclude that they have little real world impact other than showing lost of photos of new gear to potential buyers who have already made their buying decisions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2018)

4fun said:


> Main culprit however are Canon themselves: their current, first EOS R body is a decent camera, but overall still a "mirrorfree EOS 6D III". Had they launched it "as is" in terms of specs and functionality but at a price commensurate with a "6D class camera" and in line with (slightly) better specced competition [Z6, A7 III] it would be a lot harder to criticize it.
> 
> EOS R at USD/€ 1799 would/should have been considered "fully competitive". EOS R at 2399 is ... too many bucks for too little bang.



The 6D launched at $2100, and the 6DII at $2000. Look at the prices of the 5-series bodies and it's obvious that a $2300 price puts the EOS R firmly in the 6D price class.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Do try to remember that accusing a company or individual of being paid-off without disclosure is, in fact, illegal. Yes, even if you hide behind a forum username. If you're going to claim someone has been in some way paid-off or otherwise incentivised by one company to make negative remarks about another, you better have actual, presentable proof of your claims. And no, "but they always rate Sony highly!" is not proof of anything. (Other than that Sony do make very, very good cameras.)


Do try to remember that although accusing someone of hiding behind a forum name to make false claims when those claims are supported by documented evidence is not, in fact, illegal...it does make the accuser appear rather foolish.

Yes, even if you're not hiding behind a forum name and you really are Mr. Ace Flibble.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 18, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Nobody has an "agenda" or bias, other than that every single person who ever uses a camera—yourself included—will always have entirely subjective tastes and preferences.



Lol! Of course everyone has their personal biases or prejudices, but review sites aspire to some kind of objectivity (or claim to at least), so they must be held to a higher standard. I happen to think people overstate the case against DPR, but clearly they have... what I might term an editorial preference for certain things (in fact I'm not sure it's about brands so much as certain ways of shooting and postprocessing).



aceflibble said:


> Do try to remember that accusing a company or individual of being paid-off without disclosure is, in fact, illegal.



LOL! What's the old adage? 'Don't take legal advice from strangers on the internet'?

Incidentally, were they even talking about bribery? That's not how I interpreted it. DPR has paid advertorials - and they are clearly marked as such. But they also have a parent company whose preference some people have inferred exerts an influence on the site's content. That's no different from a newspaper owner's political views influencing editorial policy, but it should be borne in mind when assessing the trustworthiness of their articles.

As far as the article is concerned, I find these sorts of comparisons a bit silly, but they generate a lot of clicks I suppose.


----------



## Stuart (Dec 18, 2018)

i really want Canon to be the best - i do have brand loyalty just because of time passed and familiarisation.
I accept that video seems to be the intentional weakness of Canon's EOS R.
However i want a Canon mirrorless for its silent low light performance in evening publicity events. I wish DPR had compared low light performance around ISO 1000 to 8000 along with the AF of the Kit 24-105 lens and the 28-70.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 18, 2018)

At this juncture we are comparing different strategies. Sony's entire focus is mirrorless, which is likely still the smaller component of the market (it'll be interesting to see the numbers) whereas both Nikon and Canon still sell DSLRs.

I talked with a friend/photographer last week whose camera just broke so he is in the market for a new camera. We discussed mirrorless, but it was funny how quickly he ruled mirrorless out. He had already been researching it and wasn't that convinced anything was significantly better for what he shot. He was also concerned about non-native mounted lenses. As he is a Nikon guy he quickly settled on the D850 as the best option, followed by the D750. I had my 5DIV with me, so he played with it for awhile. He was politely "impressed" but I expect he will soon have a D750 or D850.

I would be surprised if mirrorless sales have not increased with both Canon and Nikon entering the market. But it is interesting to watch a rationale, intelligent photographer look at all of it and still pick a dSLR.


----------



## vignes (Dec 18, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> Yup friend moved to Sony a73 from canon and we tried a number of canon lenses and sigma with canon mounts. Seemed almost as fast as my 80d for focus. Saw some really good results out of it.
> 
> Another moved from Nikon and also very happy. I waited partially because cant afford, but partially because the R shows a lot of potential, just seemed rushed and thus capable but a bit underwhelming. Maybe new firmware fixes some, but suspect lot is on how fast they can process the gigantic amount of data it must generate now.. it was enough however to make me hopeful... seeing what new year brings.


Wide lens are alright but Tele lens results were not that good. there is more than AF. The EF/RF adaptor is a passive adaptive compared to Metabones. modern day lens has lens data and don't think metabones can convert all lens data and translate it to Sony protocol. you lose out on this plus every time Canon updates lens FW, who is going to rewrite and fix the FW. It's a messy solution. Sony pumped lots of money working with Metabones but now they have many G master lens to sell, do you think Sony long term plan is to keep supporting this helping Canon sell more lens. 
One of these days, the Canon lens will stop working on a Sony and the user now has to decide to chose between lens maker or body maker.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 6D launched at $2100, and the 6DII at $2000. Look at the prices of the 5-series bodies and it's obvious that a $2300 price puts the EOS R firmly in the 6D price class.



yes. That was in the past. Mirrorfree cameras can be made at lower cost and we should see *at least some* of that cost advantage reflected in prices. Sony and Nikon apparently both decided to do so (to an extent) with A7 III and Z6 pricing. Canon. Not. Stubbornly slapping another 300 bucks unto MSRP compared to previous generation (6D II). Of course they are free to do so. But we are free to point out that competition offers (somewhat) more bang for the buck. And we can hold off buying until price falls and/or new, more capable and competitively priced EOS R models appear. 

Without knowing internal numbers and data, I am convinced it would have been smarter for Canon to launch current EOS R with a more attractive MSRP
and a higher-specced, "true 5D V" at around 3.5k. Similar like Nikon Z6 & Z7. Then follow up with hi-rez [5DR/S II] and flagship/speed R1 models. With dates on a published road map, so potential clients know what to expect and when. 

Instead, Canon "went for the middle" with the R and now find it sitting between chairs a bit, getting some flak instead of much praise. Their fault, to launch a somewhat lower spec body at a price higher than competition along with mostly hi-end, expensive native glass ... better matched to higher-end cameras which have yet to come ... at an undisclosed future point in time. Not very smart in my book.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 18, 2018)

littleB said:


> https://m.dpreview.com/articles/430...w-i-spent-four-days-taking-pictures-in-hawaii
> 
> How could the Managing Editor of DPR write anything negative about her fancy trip's sponsor?
> She had so much fun, and everything was so great, so she shared that greatness. This is how this works. If someone/some company is having so much fun in a series, he could just notice less of shortcomings, and praise more of advantages.
> ...


When European car companies were no longer allowed to let journalists "test" their luxury models on weekends, many reviews became out of a sudden less positive. Coincidence???
One's got to be pretty naive to believe that a Hawai trip would not have a positive incidence on the review. Of course, personal preferences and experiences also matter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2018)

When this thread was first posted I nearly commented there is no need to watch it the order is Sony first, Nikon second and Canon third. I still haven't watched it and won't because what's the point? But was I right or wrong?


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 18, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> When this thread was first posted I nearly commented there is no need to watch it the order is Sony first, Nikon second and Canon third. I still haven't watched it and won't because what's the point? But was I right or wrong?



Haha, same here. I haven't paid a look at the DPR comparison. I have better things to do.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 18, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> When this thread was first posted I nearly commented there is no need to watch it the order is Sony first, Nikon second and Canon third. I still haven't watched it and won't because what's the point? But was I right or wrong?



spot on!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 18, 2018)

4fun said:


> no. But they "strongly hinted" their assessment as "foregone conclusion" in their preceding "first impressions" and "review" articles for each of the 3 camera models (A7III, Z6, R).



I guess they all just sorta run together in my head now.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 18, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. That was in the past. Mirrorfree cameras can be made at lower cost and we should see *at least some* of that cost advantage reflected in prices. Sony and Nikon apparently both decided to do so (to an extent) with A7 III and Z6 pricing. Canon. Not. Stubbornly slapping another 300 bucks unto MSRP compared to previous generation (6D II). Of course they are free to do so. But we are free to point out that competition offers (somewhat) more bang for the buck. And we can hold off buying until price falls and/or new, more capable and competitively priced EOS R models appear.
> 
> Without knowing internal numbers and data, I am convinced it would have been smarter for Canon to launch current EOS R with a more attractive MSRP
> and a higher-specced, "true 5D V" at around 3.5k. Similar like Nikon Z6 & Z7. Then follow up with hi-rez [5DR/S II] and flagship/speed R1 models. With dates on a published road map, so potential clients know what to expect and when.
> ...


Mirrorless is NOT cheaper to make, not yet at least. It might be cheaper in the future, but not now. Especially on lower end cameras. 

I can almost guarantee that the 3.6 million pixel viewfinder is at least 3 times the cost of a pentaprism and motor assembly. Plus there's the overhead of software for that viewfinder and cpu horsepower to drive it. On the cheaper camera's that's a pentamirror for additional savings. 

I would guess a display like that is at least $100 dollars per camera, and the motor/pentaprism combo would be maybe 20. If it was the same resolution as the M50 it might come out even, but bleeding edge cost money. The sensor and cpu subsystems in the R might have skimped some, but the viewfinder display and rear lcd display did not skimp whatsoever. 

Eventually those level of displays will be cheaper, especially as VR systems ramp up (the display for the Canon R actually is higher spec'ed than the top of the line Occulus or Vive models!)


----------



## Etienne (Dec 18, 2018)

For me the biggest strengths of the RF camera is in combination with the 35 f/1.8 IS as a lightweight FF version of a fixed lens camera, and in combination with the upcoming adapter with the built-in ND filter for use with other Canon glass. 
But in the end, it's not enough to swing me into Canon FF Mirrorless yet, especially since the new EF-M 32 f/1.4 does a decent job on my M6 for the small and lightweight option.
Looking forward to the mark II RF body, but Sony is still the one to beat and they are claiming that the A7s mark III will be a big step forward. If that is true, then Canon has it's work cut out for them.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 18, 2018)

I chose to go with the Nikon Z6 for work as a hybrid shooter, it'll be the first true replacement of the 5D since I was using a GH5 and the 5D. My 5D Mark III will still serve a use for RAW video when there's harsh lighting conditions. I might buy an A7 III for personal use since there's plenty of adapters for EF lenses that work pretty well, but the A7 III does not have a built in timelapse function like the Z6 or the 5D with Magic Lantern. 

I may wait it out and go with a newer generation EOS R with IBIS and full frame 4K for personal use in the future. But the crop on it defeats the purpose of being a hybrid shooter. For those who never touch video, the EOS R can be a great camera. I may buy one for my father so he can use his FD lenses again.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2018)

DPR is not the only entity rating the EOS R as a "show" (third place, for those of you who don't frequent the track) in this race. Is any non-Canon sponsored review site claiming the Canon is the best of these three?


----------



## LDS (Dec 18, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> One's got to be pretty naive to believe that a Hawai trip would not have a positive incidence on the review. Of course, personal preferences and experiences also matter.



There's an increasing number of "influencers" on the internet which are paid (directly or with other means) to promote products. Companies have people fully dedicated to manage influencers and ensure they promote as required. It goes from influencers who makes million to those who get only free products to review them favourably (and maybe make some bucks reselling them if they don't need them). Because you can try to influence buyers at many different levels - from reviews to shopping sites comments.

It's something that goes beyond personal bias (anybody has some, more or less), they are hidden deliberate marketing techniques that can be very effective. It's not really something new, but as other "social engineering" techniques, they got a big boost from a channel like the internet. It's becoming a huge underground battle.

As far as I know, even this site could be one 

In some jurisdiction may be mandatory to disclose it, but it's not difficult to find some ways around that. Frankly, I welcome news about products, but I learnt to read *any* review with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 18, 2018)

In a nutshell:
1. Sony, maturing product line
2. Nikon, good first try
3. Canon, I guess we have to release something if Nikon does

The ranking reflects resources invested in developing them


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> DPR is not the only entity rating the EOS R as a "show" (third place, for those of you who don't frequent the track) in this race. Is any non-Canon sponsored review site claiming the Canon is the best of these three?


Probably not, but when did you use a body in isolation? I always needed to use a lens with one and if you look at the body and lens system for a keen photographer the R wipes the floor with the other two. Who else makes a 50 f1.2, or a workhorse mid zoom at f2? Nobody. As a photographer I am far more interested in lenses than if ia body has ‘eye’ focus or ‘face’ focus.

If I were starting out today I’d be very excited by the thought of using a high quality 50mm f1.2 throughput my career and know I can seemlesly upload jpegs (with good natural colors) via my connected device to my social media feeds to let everyone see how good I am and how amazing my life is than either the Sony or the Nikon, having said that if I was that person I’d have succumbed to the peer pressure and already have a Sony...


----------



## tmc784 (Dec 18, 2018)

When I spend $3K more, I would like to buy made in Japan camera, I won't buy made in third world country camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> In a nutshell:
> 1. Sony, maturing product line
> 2. Nikon, good first try
> 3. Canon, I guess we have to release something if Nikon does
> ...


I doubt that, I expect Canon spent way more developing the new lens system than the other two combined, well we know they spent more than Sony because they spent zero on it as it’s a legacy holdover.


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 18, 2018)

EDIT: In fact I'm going to copy & paste this portion right at the top here so people definitely see it:

I mean, *Canon flew reviewers to Hawaii to review the EOS R*. Yes, Hawaii. The same place y'all are complaining about Sony sending reviewers to. The exact same place. Well, there is one difference: *the people Sony sent to Hawaii are not the same people who wrote this 3-way article, but the people who Canon sent to Hawaii are. *Allison Johnson is who Sony took to Hawaii, and she did not write the article we're talking about here. Richard Butler is who Canon took to Hawaii, and he_ is_ one of the two people who wrote this article.
In fact, not only did Canon pay for Richard to go to Hawaii to see the EOS R, but *they also got the whole DPReview video team over there*, too. (It should be pointed out that for the a7III, Sony sent the DPR video team to... well, nowhere. They did their videos of that camera in Canada, where they live.)

Rest of original post continues below, with that section in context.





GMCPhotographics said:


> Ditto.
> The features / specs or things they tend to comment on as major considerations are things that I couldn't care less about. The things that are important to me as a photographer...they skim over and give little consideration over. It's like a site written by technology fan boys.


Gee, it's almost as if different people have different tastes, preferences, and requirements, isn't it?

If someone is trying to do wildlife photography and they find the AF on the 100-400 isn't keeping up, you don't say "well it's perfectly okay for my studio product work, so you must be wrong" or "useless hack, I bet B&H paid you to say that so they can sell more 500mm f/4s instead". You don't tell a jazz musician to play something a little simpler because you like pop music and therefore jazz shouldn't be played and all jazz musicians are secretly working to push Gibson guitars.

Some people don't care about the innards of a camera body as long as they end up with the shots they want with minimal fuss. Other people don't care about all the little capacitors and transistors but they do want to know how far they can push the camera in the field. Another bunch of people want to open up every camera and inspect every single piece of wire with a microscope and measure everything in minute detail.
DPR happen to belong to the latter category. That does not make them wrong, or that they miss the point, or that you and your interests are any more righteous. It just means that they are one group of people writing for one type of audience and you happen to not be that audience.

If a camera site is going into more detail than you're interested in and picking apart things you don't care about, that's fine. There's room for both of you. Read a different site and ignore the sites which don't cover the things you want.




Del Paso said:


> When European car companies were no longer allowed to let journalists "test" their luxury models on weekends, many reviews became out of a sudden less positive. Coincidence???
> One's got to be pretty naive to believe that a Hawai trip would not have a positive incidence on the review. Of course, personal preferences and experiences also matter.


The critical aspects, which apparently everyone here has just chosen to turn a blind eye to, are:

1) _Every_ company ships reviews off to swanky locations, special set-up test environments, gives them free demo units with fore immediate support than any regular customer would receive, etc. This is not exclusive to Sony. Canon do it, too. So do Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, you name it. It's so common, it's not even exclusive to luxury goods anymore. A friend of mine used to work for a video game website and she was flown out to Dubai to preview a video game which, at that point, wasn't even half complete. She ended up not even writing up the preview, but they still paid for her to fly back over a second time once the game was finished. And that's a common entertainment product which sold for about £45. Do you really think there is _any _company in the world which _doesn't_ try to give previewers and reviewers the most impossibly perfect scenarios for adjudicating their premium products? If you can get a holiday to Dubai for a £45 game, you will get a holiday to look at a £2000 camera, too, and everything in-between.

I mean, *Canon flew reviewers to Hawaii to review the EOS R*. Yes, Hawaii. The same place y'all are complaining about Sony sending reviewers to. The exact same place. Well, there is one difference: *the people Sony sent to Hawaii are not the same people who wrote this 3-way article, but the people who Canon sent to Hawaii are. *Allison Johnson is who Sony took to Hawaii, and she did not write the article we're talking about here. Richard Butler is who Canon took to Hawaii, and he_ is_ one of the two people who wrote this article.
In fact, not only did Canon pay for Richard to go to Hawaii to see the EOS R, but *they also got the whole DPReview video team over there*, too. (It should be pointed out that for the a7III, Sony sent the DPR video team to... well, nowhere. They did their videos of that camera in Canada, where they live.)

So, you know. Y'all might want to actually pay attention to who has been sent where by who before you start throwing around aspersions. If anybody is going to accuse DPR of being sweetened up by Sony then you should also be saying they've been equally sweetened by Canon, if not more so.

2) There's a big difference between saying "these people accepted essentially a free holiday, so I don't trust that what they say is entirely impartial", and "this outlet has a brand bias". One is a harsh but not entirely unrealistic take; the other is straight-up libel. It may shock some people to learn this, but phrasing matters. There's a reason why even "opinion pieces" still have to be looked over by copy editors and have their wording chosen very carefully.
And before anybody repeats again the "oh it's just the internet, who cares/nothing will happen" schtick, bear in mind that this site itself can be held responsible for promoting libel if a company did wish to press the issue. In other words, regardless of whether an individual poster had legal action taken against them, this site could have action taken against it; you are putting CR itself in a dangerous position when someone makes these kinds of poorly-worded claims. And I'm sure the site owners will agree that they don't fancy taking those kinds of risks just so a few users can write "anti-Canon bias" on the forums.
So, again, choose words carefully is the point. It's okay to voice your distrust of an outlet, but it's a whole 'nother issue when you start using words like "bias".



neuroanatomist said:


> Do try to remember that although accusing someone of hiding behind a forum name to make false claims when those claims are supported by documented evidence is not, in fact, illegal...it does make the accuser appear rather foolish.
> 
> Yes, even if you're not hiding behind a forum name and you really are Mr. Ace Flibble.


No, there's no documented evidence of anybody at DPR working under an edict to intentionally slant reviews and copy. There _is_ documented evidence that staff at DPR have accepted some pretty nice weekends from multiple companies—every company, in fact—but acknowledging that is not the same as throwing around claims that writers have been bought. Again, see point #2 above. Phrasing matters.

It's also not "accusing" someone of using a penname on a forum when registering for the site makes that mandatory. That's simply an objective fact. Nor is simply reminding someone that their username does not protect them an accusation of anything, either, which is what was actually said.
And no, of course I'm not really Mr Ace Flibble, nor did I ever claim to be. I'm not a Mr, for a start.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> In a nutshell:
> 1. Sony, maturing product line
> 2. Nikon, good first try
> 3. Canon, I guess we have to release something if Nikon does
> ...


*OR *the heavily cropped 4k, and the weird Multi-function swipe-strip thingy, and the lack of a sensible AF-point selection control. It's a camera that shows Canon has big things ahead, and, because I'm invested currently in EF lenses, and I'm looking forward to the great RF lenses, I'm happy to wait for the RF body that works for me.

But to wail and moan about bias and whatever might drive somebody to choose another camera as a "winner" in this round is...I can't even think of a word that fits.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 18, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> DPR is not the only entity rating the EOS R as a "show" (third place, for those of you who don't frequent the track) in this race. Is any non-Canon sponsored review site claiming the Canon is the best of these three?



I don't think so. I think the bigger issue is "value." The R was initially priced higher than I think it should have been, and there are already discounts available on the R (via street price, etc.). That reflects more on Canon marketing strategy than anything else. They're trying to get the highest profit possible, so they drop the price over time. Remember when the 24-70 f/4 IS debuted around 1500? Or the 35 f/2 IS, 24 f/2.8 IS and 28 f/2.8 IS in the 600-800 range? With 6D2s going between 1000-1500 and 5D4s going around 2500, the R will follow a similar curve, but I think it will be faster because of the Z6/A7III pricing and because of the upcoming R bodies.

If the R were priced at 1800 or 1900, I don't think there would be as much angst, but I do think it's going to fall to those values quickly. The DPR video said that all three cameras are mature and will take great pictures. That is the baseline. But it doesn't tell a good story if the lowest gets a 95 and the highest a 98, so they stress the differences -- IBIS, 1 vs 2 card slots (although how many people write video to both cards at the same time), etc. I take video of the kids' plays, and I still choose to use 1080p even though I have the 5D4 and the R. The R is more efficient, but 4K can still take up to 120 Mbps or 15 MBps or 54 GB/hr. I'm not willing to go through 54 GB of hard drive space for a 1 hr video.

I got the R and the 24-105 kit at effectively 20% off (20% back in points to spend later). I thought that was an ok deal. But as privatebydesign stated the reason to get the R is the lenses. The 50 f/1.2 is fantastic (where is Viggo when you need him to swoon  ). The focusing with EF fast primes is more accurate than my 5D4 off center. The R is positioned to kill off the 6D2, not the 5D4. I still prefer the 5D4, but the R is growing on me. I use the control ring for ISO, and the multifunction bar to lock/unlock drag AF. The wheels moves the AF point several points per press (pad is slower), but it's still too slow to move across the screen because the R has so many AF points. That is where the touch/drag helps.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I don't think so. I think the bigger issue is "value." The R was initially priced higher than I think it should have been, and there are already discounts available on the R (via street price, etc.). That reflects more on Canon marketing strategy than anything else. They're trying to get the highest profit possible, so they drop the price over time. Remember when the 24-70 f/4 IS debuted around 1500? Or the 35 f/2 IS, 24 f/2.8 IS and 28 f/2.8 IS in the 600-800 range? With 6D2s going between 1000-1500 and 5D4s going around 2500, the R will follow a similar curve, but I think it will be faster because of the Z6/A7III pricing and because of the upcoming R bodies.
> 
> If the R were priced at 1800 or 1900, I don't think there would be as much angst, but I do think it's going to fall to those values quickly. The DPR video said that all three cameras are mature and will take great pictures. That is the baseline. But it doesn't tell a good story if the lowest gets a 95 and the highest a 98, so they stress the differences -- IBIS, 1 vs 2 card slots (although how many people write video to both cards at the same time), etc. I take video of the kids' plays, and I still choose to use 1080p even though I have the 5D4 and the R. The R is more efficient, but 4K can still take up to 120 Mbps or 15 MBps or 54 GB/hr. I'm not willing to go through 54 GB of hard drive space for a 1 hr video.
> 
> I got the R and the 24-105 kit at effectively 20% off (20% back in points to spend later). I thought that was an ok deal. But as privatebydesign stated the reason to get the R is the lenses. The 50 f/1.2 is fantastic (where is Viggo when you need him to swoon  ). The focusing with EF fast primes is more accurate than my 5D4 off center. The R is positioned to kill off the 6D2, not the 5D4. I still prefer the 5D4, but the R is growing on me. I use the control ring for ISO, and the multifunction bar to lock/unlock drag AF. The wheels moves the AF point several points per press (pad is slower), but it's still too slow to move across the screen because the R has so many AF points. That is where the touch/drag helps.


Great response. Yes, and good photographer is going to take many excellent photos with any of these. I don't know how much a few hundred dollars in price affects reviews, but it is important to remember the class of camera Canon has released. It is NOT a follow up to a 5D IV, even if it shares the sensor tech.

Probably most people who, such as yourself, actually USE video functions are happy in the 1080p zone for practical reasons, though as more 4K TV's are sold, home-video will still be one of the few actual sources of native 4K content for a while.

And, as privatebydesign reminds us, not all photographers considering this level of camera are doing so without either owning lenses already or looking at the bigger picture of what lenses are available right now.

I am glad to hear you and others making good use of the touchscreen for AF-point selection; however, I hope Canon comes up with something separate from the display screen (but better than the 80D style selector the R seems to have).


----------



## Uneternal (Dec 18, 2018)

As always, Dpreview favors Sony over everything. And Nikon gets the bonus second place for having a Sony sensor.
Deliberately hiding the fact, that EF lenses perform far better on an EOS R with native adapter than on a Sony with third party adapter at reduced burst rate and also reduced AF hit rate - especially in dim light. Which is deliberately misleading people into buying a Sony.

Also the fact they put Nikon second in landscape/wedding photography dismissing the 30 MP of the R and instead cheering for that 1 stop more DR (although it shows HEAVY banding) is just ridiculous.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2018)

Is Canon the Rodney Dangerfield of camera brands? "I don't get no respect"

I don't think so. But posters here get aggravated every time Canon releases a product that isn't universally recognized as the best in the industry. Is there some vast Sony-wing conspiracy out there?


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 18, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> The R is more efficient, but 4K can still take up to 120 Mbps or 15 MBps or 54 GB/hr. I'm not willing to go through 54 GB of hard drive space for a 1 hr video.



In the future, H.265 will be your best friend. Archiving 4K footage in H.265 is the way to go. Even if you're still shooting 1080, it's nice to archive it in H.265 at around 3-5 mbps.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2018)

crazyrunner33 said:


> In the future, H.265 will be your best friend. Archiving 4K footage in H.265 is the way to go. Even if you're still shooting 1080, it's nice to archive it in H.265 at around 3-5 mbps.


H.265 isn't the future, it is the next step forwards, it might last 5 years before something even more efficient will come out, and we'll need it if we start going to 6k and 8k because competition dictates cameras have to have it.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Dec 18, 2018)

Instead of blaming DPReview for a "biased review", why not blame Canon for not making a better camera? It's 2018 and the specs are lagging. That's not to say the EOS R is a bad camera, it isn't. It's just not a good value camera considering the specifications and most expensive in it's class price tag.

- No IBIS, No full frame 4K, No new sensor, no dual card slots and so on.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 18, 2018)

preppyak said:


> Both the Sigma MC-11 and Metabones adapters would be more than capable of adapting Canon EF lenses to FE mount with full auto-focus at almost the same performance as on an EF body.
> 
> Not being aware of those would mean you're not very familiar with the Sony system.



It appears I'm aware of the adapters you are aware of (metabones and mc11, no?), but that DPR is either aware of some other adapter, or its statement was incorrect. Regarding the adapters you and I are aware of, here are the actual measured reviews I found most comprehensive. 

Dustin Abbott:




"Even with the Metabones, which is the better focus experience with the Canons, I wouldn't feel that for critical shooting... .... that focus is quite there yet..."

The Camera Store (the guys DPR has since hired to do their video reviews)




"...autofocus with adapters in the video market has still not arrived, and you're largely still going to manual focus."
&
"...sometimes there is a little hesitation... There is a slight bit of jitteriness as you move backward and forward..."

The adapters are generally positively reviewed, but they are not at all considered equivalent experiences. Unless you know something different. This DPR review could be fixed with a small language change to be more subtle, and changing their colored table to indicate that under the Sony system, the Canon-mount lenses have some small limitations, much like they made a different color under the Nikon f-mount box, indicating some autofocus exceptions.


----------



## snappy604 (Dec 18, 2018)

vignes said:


> Wide lens are alright but Tele lens results were not that good. there is more than AF. The EF/RF adaptor is a passive adaptive compared to Metabones. modern day lens has lens data and don't think metabones can convert all lens data and translate it to Sony protocol. you lose out on this plus every time Canon updates lens FW, who is going to rewrite and fix the FW. It's a messy solution. Sony pumped lots of money working with Metabones but now they have many G master lens to sell, do you think Sony long term plan is to keep supporting this helping Canon sell more lens.
> One of these days, the Canon lens will stop working on a Sony and the user now has to decide to chose between lens maker or body maker.




again everyone's needs and experiences will be different, but the sigma 150-600 contemporary with a canon mount and the canon 70-200 2.8IS v1 both worked just fine and I consider both telephotos.. the buddy took some great hummingbird pics with the 600... so not sure I agree with your statement, but possibly some subtle differences I don't notice and you do 

the other way to consider this.. sure Sony may stop supporting the direct writing of adapters in future, but by then you've either decided to get into the Sony ecosystem or the canon one.. this is a bridge in essence. Also while canon does produce great glass, if you're not at the very top end, the 3rd parties give great lenses for a much lower cost and support the major vendors (canon, sony, nikon)... the tamron 28-75 2.8 IS produced some gorgeous pics on my friend's new a73 in very low light.

Not anti-canon, just think we need to be open minded that sometimes others do produce good products and sometimes others like those other products and its not the end of the world.


----------



## jmoya (Dec 18, 2018)

This is what canon deserves for not putting out anything that can compete with the existing market. I've only ever shot canon nor do I choose to shoot anything else. I just have lost faith in their camera making abilities since I bought the canon 5dIV. They should've earned their lesson ever since the canon 6d II failure. How is recycling old tech into a new body classify the camera as new? Their not being innovative? I love canon lenses and their color science but their handicapping their cameras lately has really been getting to me for years not. Till they get it together and come out with a camera worth spending on I'll stick to the 5dIV. It's a shame.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 18, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Instead of blaming DPReview for a "biased review", why not blame Canon for not making a better camera? It's 2018 and the specs are lagging. That's not to say the EOS R is a bad camera, it isn't. It's just not a good value camera considering the specifications and most expensive in it's class price tag.
> 
> - No IBIS, No full frame 4K, No new sensor, no dual card slots and so on.



Of course, the same could be said for any camera - as they all have their pros and cons. Why not blame Sony for not making a better camera? 

- No articulating screen, no DPAF, poor ergonomics, sub-par color science, and so on. (And in Sony's case, they have now had 3 generations to get it right, why don't they?)

I think it is far more useful to get reviews from actual photographers - not sites like DPR. Steve Huff has had a couple articles about the Canon R - and he is a long time Sony user. He says:

"The EOS-R does indeed do a few things better than the Sony A7III and HERE THEY ARE: Body style and body size, controls and ergonomics, EVF, button placement and easy menus as well as ease of use between video and photo. I prefer the swivel out screen as well for video, no need for an external display when filming yourself and can change settings on the fly while in front of the camera, and again, the focus speed and color are fantastic. The AF is better on the Canon over Sony with photos and video. Dual Pixel is as good as it gets, and Canon offers a smooth, almost cinematic style to the auto focus. For video, it’s amazing. The EOS-R feels so good while using it, and the grip is just right. I also think the overall IQ is better, more pleasing and with more depth but I am picky."

Also, "Yes yes yes, the Sony A7III does many things very well and even offers better video specs. But one thing for me that I do not get with the Sony is the_ Canon color_, and yes, it is a real thing. Just as Leica has their own color signature, Sony has theirs, Fuji has theirs, Canon has theirs and Nikon has a unique Nikon color. No matter what camera brand one buys, it will have that brands color signature and in reality one should choose their system based on their color preferences and lens selection."

Another photographer I trust is Ming Thein. He has a very informative website with lots of great information. His review is of the 2nd generation Sony, not the 3rd, but I'm not sure there is any reason to think things have changed. While every one has the same spec - sensor cleaning - that doesn't mean they all work the same or as well: "On sensor cleaning: I’ve already got stubborn dust spots on mine that cannot be dislodged with blower or shaker. It will have to be wet cleaned, but the sensor suspension mechanism is delicate and this makes me very nervous. Note: in four years of multiple Olympus bodies and over 100,000 images plus lens changes with no heed for ambient dust, I’ve never had to wet clean a sensor. Or even use a blower, for that matter."

From Steve Huff on IBIS. Again, having a spec does not mean they are all equal. "I have always found the 5 Axis inside the Sony A7 series to be lackluster. At least for video. I have loads of shaky Sony video with 5 Axis active. I used to think it was defective in my A7RII as I never saw any benefit when shooting video. When it was the same in the A7rIII I realized that in full frame cameras it just will not be like it is in Micro 4/3 cameras."

In other words, having a spec does not mean that it works well.

The best quote I have seen that sums up the Sony offerings (and I have tried the first 2 generations) comes from Ming Thein. After using the A7 II for many months, he wrote, ""It is not a camera, it’s an electronic gadget. After six months and eight thousand frames with it, I disliked it more and more."

I only have used these many examples and quotes because so many folks make these definitive statements that one camera is better than another, or that one camera has better specs than another. It seems fairly obvious that their is no definitive answer. it all depends on what specs you need and how well they work.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. That was in the past. Mirrorfree cameras can be made at lower cost and we should see *at least some* of that cost advantage reflected in prices. Sony and Nikon apparently both decided to do so (to an extent) with A7 III and Z6 pricing.


Where is your evidence supporting the claim that a mirrorless camera is cheaper to produce than an equivalent DSLR? Are you aware of the fact that unit production cost is only one component companies use to determine a market price, and generally not the most important one? (As an extreme example, a certain medication for cystic fibrosis is billed at $300K/year but costs about the same as aspirin to manufacture.) Incidentally, the Z6 costs the same as the D610 at launch, and the Z7 costs more than the D850 at launch. Doesn't exactly square with your logic. Oh, and to which comparable Sony DSLR are are you comparing the a7III? 



4fun said:


> Without knowing ... I am convinced ... Not very smart.


I agree, being convinced of something regarding which you know nothing is not very smart. 

But then, I've come to suspect you are merely yet another incarnation of AvTvM, and in that case none of the above really comes as a surprise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2018)

jmoya said:


> This is what canon deserves for not putting out anything that can compete with the existing market.


Please show us the data that support your claim that the EOS R can't, "...compete with the existing market." Note that 'I don't like it' or 'my uncle's second cousin twice removed bought a Sony' do not constitute data. Also note that in the absence of data, you're merely making ASSumptions.

So, let's look at the available data. They're only from Japan at this point, but that's still the largest MILC market. 

Here are last month's sales rankings:
https://news.mapcamera.com/maptimes.php?itemid=31881
What camera tops the list? The EOS R.

Here's the overall FF ILC market in Japan from Oct2017 - Oct2018






In addition to Canon having the largest FF ILC market share for the full year (13 months, actually), note the uptick for Canon that coincides with the launch of the EOS R. 

So evidently Canon has put out a FF MILC that can compete very well with the existing market, and is likely getting exactly what they deserve – success and profit.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2018)

Neuro, don't tell Canon they could charge $300k/year for an aspirin as it might give them ideas. Or is that how they price the big whites anyway?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2018)

Nothing quite like a DPReview story to get the juices flowing on this forum. I've said it before and will continue to say it, I much prefer reviewers who point out what is wrong with Canon (I don't buy Sony or Nikon so I don't really care about reviews of those cameras). Even if I disagree with their assessment, I want to read their opinions and I consider whining that they are mean to Canon as just that: whining (or maybe whinging to some.)


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2018)

I know that a great many members here are well over 60 years old (so please be kind), but for the younger, perennially exasperated crowd, here's a Rodney Dangerfield link, in case my earlier reference was "before your time."


----------



## Tremotino (Dec 18, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. That was in the past. Mirrorfree cameras can be made at lower cost and we should see *at least some* of that cost advantage reflected in prices. Sony and Nikon apparently both decided to do so (to an extent) with A7 III and Z6 pricing. Canon. Not. Stubbornly slapping another 300 bucks unto MSRP compared to previous generation (6D II). Of course they are free to do so. But we are free to point out that competition offers (somewhat) more bang for the buck. And we can hold off buying until price falls and/or new, more capable and competitively priced EOS R models appear.
> 
> Without knowing internal numbers and data, I am convinced it would have been smarter for Canon to launch current EOS R with a more attractive MSRP
> and a higher-specced, "true 5D V" at around 3.5k. Similar like Nikon Z6 & Z7. Then follow up with hi-rez [5DR/S II] and flagship/speed R1 models. With dates on a published road map, so potential clients know what to expect and when.
> ...


In Europe the price for the eos R in the internet is about 1800€ (inc adapter). the sony A7 iii 1750€
The eos r kit about 2500€
I think its a fair price


----------



## flip314 (Dec 18, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Neuro, don't tell Canon they could charge $300k/year for an aspirin as it might give them ideas. Or is that how they price the big whites anyway?



Canon's big whites are cheap compared to Sony's... and generally Nikon's comparable lenses as well. If you're going to pick on Canon for overpricing something, you should focus on the bodies.

Then again, if you're a pro that owns even 1 or 2 super telephoto lenses you probably still come ahead on the overall system price going with Canon, something the Sony fanbois seem to overlook when they tout the lower body prices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> In a nutshell:
> 1. Sony, maturing product line
> 2. Nikon, good first try
> 3. Canon, I guess we have to release something if Nikon does
> ...


Who do you find in nutshells? Nuts.


----------



## tron (Dec 19, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> ...
> 
> 3) This is the same thing that happened with the EF mount. The first EF bodies _sucked_. They were totally, totally awful. ..


Awful.... Give me a break. I had EOS 620, 600 and RT. They were very good to say the least.


----------



## applecider (Dec 19, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I doubt that, I expect Canon spent way more developing the new lens system than the other two combined, well we know they spent more than Sony because they spent zero on it as it’s a legacy holdover.


The first R is a better camera than dpr is giving credit for. Canon used the arguably best sensor in their line and good number of MPs. Cropping a 24 vs a 30 something image is major to me. 

Sure it lacks a few high end checks, but if one were buying lenses for future compatibility, rather than bodies which come and go then the EF line is the choice with the most compatibility eg SONY AND CANON. Buy Sony lenses and it’s compatible with the current Sony,


----------



## 4fun (Dec 19, 2018)

Tremotino said:


> In Europe the price for the eos R in the internet is about 1800€ (inc adapter). the sony A7 iii 1750€
> The eos r kit about 2500€
> I think its a fair price



not in the Europe I live in.
https://geizhals.at/canon-eos-5d-ma...oc=uk&hloc=eu&v=e&togglecountry=set#offerlist

EOS R generally € 2899 - body only. best deal from reputable dealers 2699.
Sony A7 III - € 2244 and up [from non-fly-by night-scammers]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> EDIT: In fact I'm going to copy & paste this portion right at the top here so people definitely see it:
> 
> I mean, *Canon flew reviewers to Hawaii to review the EOS R*. Yes, Hawaii. The same place y'all are complaining about Sony sending reviewers to. The exact same place. Well, there is one difference: *the people Sony sent to Hawaii are not the same people who wrote this 3-way article, but the people who Canon sent to Hawaii are. *Allison Johnson is who Sony took to Hawaii, and she did not write the article we're talking about here. Richard Butler is who Canon took to Hawaii, and he_ is_ one of the two people who wrote this article.
> In fact, not only did Canon pay for Richard to go to Hawaii to see the EOS R, but *they also got the whole DPReview video team over there*, too. (It should be pointed out that for the a7III, Sony sent the DPR video team to... well, nowhere. They did their videos of that camera in Canada, where they live.)
> ...


Apologies, Ms. Not-Ace-Flibble. Or maybe your implication was that it's actually Dr. Not-Ace-Flibble, in which case I'll withdraw my apology due to the pretentiousness of that implication.

That aside, I agree that there is no evidence of collusion (to choose a term from the currently popular vernacular) between DPR and Sony. But one has only to read their articles to see the evident bias against Canon. Things like stating Canon's automatic AF point selection was not performing properly, when in fact in their hands it was performing exactly as the manual states it will (they were merely unaware of the designed/intended behavior). Or bashing servo AF performance with the system set to spot AF (something the manual specifically recommends against). I suppose you could argue that's not bias, but in that case I guess you believe it's acceptable for reviewers to either be technically incompetent or too lazy to RTFM. Either way, it means DPR's reviews aren't worth the photons used to display them.

Why would DPR be biased? Well, retailers seem to think margin is important, and we all know that Jeff likes making money ( for anyone missing the reference, that's Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, which owns DPR). I've spoken with several retailers (owners) over the years, and have consistently been told that Canon shorts them on margins compared to other manufacturers, claiming that the volume of their very popular cameras should more than make up for it. Obviously, I can't say with certainty that is the reason for the bias, but it's a plausible explanation.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 19, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I doubt that, I expect Canon spent way more developing the new lens system than the other two combined, well we know they spent more than Sony because they spent zero on it as it’s a legacy holdover.


No argument on the lenses but the review was of the bodies. DP Review has raved about the EF R lenses as has pretty much every reviewer. Canon's ability to make great lenses isn't really in question. 

But, the EOS R body looks like a "parts bin special" and DPR called them on it when most reviewers can't or won't. In my opinion that is a good thing. Canon is the world's largest, most successful, camera company and they should be held to a higher not lower standard. At least Nikon, despite some significant flaws in their offering, seemed to be making an effort.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 19, 2018)

flip314 said:


> Canon's big whites are cheap compared to Sony's... and generally Nikon's comparable lenses as well. If you're going to pick on Canon for overpricing something, you should focus on the bodies.
> 
> Then again, if you're a pro that owns even 1 or 2 super telephoto lenses you probably still come ahead on the overall system price going with Canon, something the Sony fanbois seem to overlook when they tout the lower body prices.


The price of the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF is close to 50% of that of the similarly sized Canon 400mm DO II. Canon can afford to have a long running £600 cashback on the £2000 100-400mm II to bring it down to the price of the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6. And Sigma undercuts them all on its excellent 500mm f/4. The truth is that Sony and Canon charge what the market will bear.


----------



## Chris_BC (Dec 19, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Nobody has an "agenda" or bias, other than that every single person who ever uses a camera—yourself included—will always have entirely subjective tastes and preferences.
> 
> Do try to remember that accusing a company or individual of being paid-off without disclosure is, in fact, illegal. Yes, even if you hide behind a forum username. If you're going to claim someone has been in some way paid-off or otherwise incentivised by one company to make negative remarks about another, you better have actual, presentable proof of your claims.
> 
> ...



You had a bit of a point, and then you went off the deep end. You are horribly, pathetically, wrong about the comment that sent you off that deep end. Claiming someone "has an agenda" in no way, shape, or form comes anywhere close to libel. Claiming that "it appears that they were paid off" is much more specific, yet still does not rise to the level of libel. Anything that can be construed as an opinion falls under protection of the 1st amendment. 

For public figures and public companies, the bar is even higher than for private individuals. That's why you see so many comments about politicians and various companies being crooks, and/or involved in various illegal activities, yet nothing is done. Even if a specific false claim of illegal wrongdoing (And FYI, promoting a product because you are paid on the sly or otherwise is not a crime.) is made, the mountain that must be climbed to prove the civil offense of libel is substantial.

Go poll some attorneys that do civil cases if you think I'm off base. I suggest you stick to camera analysis where it appears you have a much better argument.


----------



## Chris_BC (Dec 19, 2018)

While not evaluating the review's merits, yet another reason to shake your head at the decision to cancel or stall DSLR and EF lens development. I would have done both simultaneously, while perhaps reducing model count on the DSLR side other than on the high end.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 19, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> No argument on the lenses but the review was of the bodies. DP Review has raved about the EF R lenses as has pretty much every reviewer. Canon's ability to make great lenses isn't really in question.
> 
> But, the EOS R body looks like a "parts bin special" and DPR called them on it when most reviewers can't or won't. In my opinion that is a good thing. Canon is the world's largest, most successful, camera company and they should be held to a higher not lower standard. At least Nikon, despite some significant flaws in their offering, seemed to be making an effort.


But photography is about light and that is captured by lenses. I just don't get it, how can you review a body in isolation, and if you do what relevance does that one specific part of an image making system have?

My point is if you evaluate the images from the three systems then the Canon can take more unique images than the other two combined, I'm not saying the R is a particularly feature rich camera, what I'm saying is in a review I would look to resultant images more than anything else. If you do that and are a decent photographer that understands perspective and dof then the Canon offering is head and shoulders above the others.

If images are the object and intent then the Canon is far and away the best image making tool in large part because of the unique lens selection,


----------



## addola (Dec 19, 2018)

I think the reason why you see this "disappointment" & "bad reviews" with Canon is that YouTubers are savvy videographers. They're focused on video because they're content creator. Ease of use, convenience & customer support doesn't usually get factored in that. According to the specs EOS R can focus at (-6 EV @ f/1.2) , which is 0.5 stop better than A7s II (-4EV @ f/2), but no one emphasizes that, not even Canon themselves. I was at CES2016, and the A7s II was in a very dark room to showcase its advantage in low-light.

EOS R is priced similarly to Panasonic GH5s, a MFT camera which is focused on video but lacks IBIS. I wonder why Panasonic abandoned IBIS in GH5s and whether it was for technical reasons. But, Panasonic charges $2200 for MFT-sized sensor camera & no IBIS just because it has great 4K video. If the EOS R had what people are complaining about: better 4K, IBIS, dual slots, etc, they won't offer it for just $2200. 

Canon should introduce these in their future RF Cameras. RF mount has a tad longer flange distance than MFT, which I think may give room for a better optical IBIS design. Panasonic has superior IBIS to Sony. Sony's IBIS isn't all that impressive, look up examples on YouTube for yourself. Canon can & I believe will make a better IBIS than Sony. 

I personally still shoot my Canon 6D, and haven't planned on moving to mirrorless yet. I could go with Canon RF (likely). I could go with Nikon, and I could even go with the L-Mount (Panasonic/Sigma/Leica), and I believe all have great advantages (and potential future advantages) to Sony's tiny E-Mount. I love the Sony brand, and respect how they pushed the competition in the industry, but I am not likely to go the Sony route.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 19, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> But photography is about light and that is captured by lenses. I just don't get it, how can you review a body in isolation, and if you do what relevance does that one specific part of an image making system have?
> 
> My point is if you evaluate the images from the three systems then the Canon can take more unique images than the other two combined, I'm not saying the R is a particularly feature rich camera, what I'm saying is in a review I would look to resultant images more than anything else. If you do that and are a decent photographer that understands perspective and dof then the Canon offering is head and shoulders above the others.
> 
> If images are the object and intent then the Canon is far and away the best image making tool in large part because of the unique lens selection,



So how many bells and whistles are on a typical lens. They simply are relatively boring and little that's truly amazing comes with a new model - just good/better performance. Obviously, camera's are the more exciting part of the system and the part that can be used to milk the consumer more regularly.

IOW no matter how important lenses are, they will never be as "polarizing" or contentious as camera bodies.

A camera can take multiple lenses, so which one should be included in a camera body review? How do you include all possibilities or do you take the kit lens? So does a camera review become a system review such that great lenses in great numbers, biases all cameras of one manufacturer as being better? I don't see a practical solution to this from a review site perspsective but a given individual can perform this exercise for themselves based on their own particular needs pulling bits and pieces from the various reviewers.

Jack


----------



## snoke (Dec 19, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> If images are the object and intent then the Canon is far and away the best image making tool in large part because of the unique lens selection,



Conclusion: nobody write review, just count lens. Winner have most lenses.

Yes?


----------



## PerKr (Dec 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, and to which comparable Sony DSLR are are you comparing the a7III?



Taking this a bit out of context, I find it interesting that Sony's A7 series isn't compared to their SLT line more often and criticized for things like having only a tilt screen and the poor adapter options for SLT users looking to go E-mount. Issues that were fine for the first generation, that should have been dealt with for the second generation and are just ridiculous for the third generation. It's usually just brushed over and disregarded. Meanwhile, the competition seems to actually have given these things some thought, offering an experience that at least seems to be relatively close to what their DSLRs offer.


----------



## analoggrotto (Dec 19, 2018)

In a time where Consumer Reports rates the Toyota Tacoma "Dont Buy" yet it's the best selling midsize pickup; I do wonder if DPR has much influence over anything. 

Its hard to not be just a bit disappointed with the EOS R body given how stellar the lenses are out of the gate. Who didnt believe that Canon finally had an answer to BSI, 4K, and IBIS so long after the 5D Mk4 was released? Just what is the EOS R supposed to accomplish in the next 2-3 years? And was it worth stealing the limelight from Nikon for what many feel is a 6/7ths finished product? Here's hoping the firmware update is at least spicy.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 19, 2018)

PerKr said:


> Taking this a bit out of context, I find it interesting that Sony's A7 series isn't compared to their SLT line more often and criticized for things like having only a tilt screen and the poor adapter options for SLT users looking to go E-mount. Issues that were fine for the first generation, that should have been dealt with for the second generation and are just ridiculous for the third generation. It's usually just brushed over and disregarded. Meanwhile, the competition seems to actually have given these things some thought, offering an experience that at least seems to be relatively close to what their DSLRs offer.



You may not be aware of it, but Sony adapters for legacy A-mount lenses (DSLR/SLT) have been available for a long time. Actually 2 different adapter models, one even offers detached Phase-AF with a (fixed) mirror. Depending on user preferences and their lenses. 
Sony LA-EA3 regular mount adapter without mirror, available since 2013
Sony LA-EA4 with Phase-AF and translucent mirror, https://www.sony.com/electronics/converters-mount-adapters/la-ea4
Even before that Sony offered 2 predeccesors - models EA1 and EA2, originally introduced with NEX / E-mount cameras. 
Really no issue.


----------



## PerKr (Dec 19, 2018)

4fun said:


> You may not be aware of it, but Sony adapters for legacy A-mount lenses (DSLR/SLT) have been available for a long time. Actually 2 different adapter models, one even offers detached Phase-AF with a (fixed) mirror. Depending on user preferences and their lenses.
> Sony LA-EA3 regular mount adapter without mirror, available since 2013
> Sony LA-EA4 with Phase-AF and translucent mirror, https://www.sony.com/electronics/converters-mount-adapters/la-ea4
> Even before that Sony offered 2 predeccesors - models EA1 and EA2, originally introduced with NEX / E-mount cameras.
> Really no issue.



Oh, I am very aware of their existence. But they're not good enough. Well, the LA-EA3 is if you have SSM lenses but Sony never went SSM with their entire lens lineup. And the LA-EA4 shares its AF module with an entry-level APS-C model as far as I can tell. At the very least, they could pull the AF from the A77ii. Better yet, why not pull the AF module from the A99ii? Or leave it to the on-sensor focus points now that they have that in all their FF models? Remove the mirror, keep the motor, make use of the OSPDAF.


----------



## LDS (Dec 19, 2018)

4fun said:


> not in the Europe I live in.
> 
> EOS R generally € 2899 - body only. best deal from reputable dealers 2699.
> Sony A7 III - € 2244 and up [from non-fly-by night-scammers]



As I can see on Amazon Italy and Germany, the R body + EF adapter is about 2500 euro and the A7III 2250. Prices can vary depending on local VAT - which usually in Europe is included in consumer prices.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apologies, Ms. Not-Ace-Flibble. Or maybe your implication was that it's actually Dr. Not-Ace-Flibble, in which case I'll withdraw my apology due to the pretentiousness of that implication.
> 
> That aside, I agree that there is no evidence of collusion (to choose a term from the currently popular vernacular) between DPR and Sony. But one has only to read their articles to see the evident bias against Canon. Things like stating Canon's automatic AF point selection was not performing properly, when in fact in their hands it was performing exactly as the manual states it will (they were merely unaware of the designed/intended behavior). Or bashing servo AF performance with the system set to spot AF (something the manual specifically recommends against). I suppose you could argue that's not bias, but in that case I guess you believe it's acceptable for reviewers to either be technically incompetent or too lazy to RTFM. Either way, it means DPR's reviews aren't worth the photons used to display them.
> 
> Why would DPR be biased? Well, retailers seem to think margin is important, and we all know that Jeff likes making money ( for anyone missing the reference, that's Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, which owns DPR). I've spoken with several retailers (owners) over the years, and have consistently been told that Canon shorts them on margins compared to other manufacturers, claiming that the volume of their very popular cameras should more than make up for it. Obviously, I can't say with certainty that is the reason for the bias, but it's a plausible explanation.



Guys and gals.. DPR is simply another mainstream news outlet among many. The fact is, they aren't going away anytime soon, and none of us have any real capacity to change their biases (if any). The fact is, DPR is a mainstream outlet, just like CNN, Fox News, etc. and they all carry their own biases be it right wing, left wing or chicken wings. The fact that this comparison review has incited 5 pages of posts, myself included, means they've done well in their mission to drive clicks and revenue. Sure, there are many independent reviewers out there, but none of them have the same exposure or resources DPR commands. We can have our own chance at changing that dialog, when we have command of a media empire that can be its direct competitor. Short of that, we just have to accept what is out there and make our own choices within.

I do commend Sony's effort though as it somewhat parallels the many entrepreneurs that try and fail multiple times to make some headway in whatever endeavors they seek. Sure, there are rough edges, but look where they are today. Maybe they aren't the market share behemoth among its peers, but at the very least they inspire what can be done by trying hard persistently in a crowded market. That's partially why they have become the press release darling these days. Is it sustainable? Nobody really knows at this point, but I've created some great content on Sony these days, and I'm not missing a thing yet on the other side of the fence.

These are creative tools and not dishwashers or coffee makers. Perceived ergonomics, market share and pro support don't exactly expand a products creative ability YMMV. Purposeful product segmentation or "crippling" as people endearingly call it, leaves a bad taste in people's mouth. I think generally speaking the EOS R wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms, and Canon probably does deserve to be in 3rd place at this point in time in the particular review.

But I think the release of $3k and $4k lenses probably means it was simply a rushed product in response to the competition and that it will be followed up with a proper response. When they do, I wouldn't be against jumping back to Canon.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 19, 2018)

PerKr said:


> Oh, I am very aware of their existence. But they're not good enough. Well, the LA-EA3 is if you have SSM lenses but Sony never went SSM with their entire lens lineup. And the LA-EA4 shares its AF module with an entry-level APS-C model as far as I can tell. At the very least, they could pull the AF from the A77ii. Better yet, why not pull the AF module from the A99ii? Or leave it to the on-sensor focus points now that they have that in all their FF models? Remove the mirror, keep the motor, make use of the OSPDAF.



Sony has the same backwards lens compatibility issues as Nikon: many generations of old lenses with different AF drives, including many "screwdriver" type plus mechanical shenanigans like aperture rings. Given the burden of that legacy and the much smaller installed base of A-mount lenses (compared to Nikon F or Canon EF), I think Sony took quite good care of their "legacy" customers. Definitely well enough to not deserve a lot of criticism in this regard.

Of course things are a lot easier over at Canon, thanks to their bold and unpopular move to a fully electric lens mount back in 1987. As I have stated many times already. Extra plus was their excellent idea to put a control ring or filters into the adapters.


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 19, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> Guys and gals.. DPR is simply another mainstream news outlet among many. The fact is, they aren't going away anytime soon, and none of us have any real capacity to change their biases (if any). The fact is, DPR is a mainstream outlet, just like CNN, Fox News, etc. and they all carry their own biases be it right wing, left wing or chicken wings. The fact that this comparison review has incited 5 pages of posts, myself included, means they've done well in their mission to drive clicks and revenue. Sure, there are many independent reviewers out there, but none of them have the same exposure or resources DPR commands. We can have our own chance at changing that dialog, when we have command of a media empire that can be its direct competitor. Short of that, we just have to accept what is out there and make our own choices within.
> 
> I do commend Sony's effort though as it somewhat parallels the many entrepreneurs that try and fail multiple times to make some headway in whatever endeavors they seek. Sure, there are rough edges, but look where they are today. Maybe they aren't the market share behemoth among its peers, but at the very least they inspire what can be done by trying hard persistently in a crowded market. That's partially why they have become the press release darling these days. Is it sustainable? Nobody really knows at this point, but I've created some great content on Sony these days, and I'm not missing a thing yet on the other side of the fence.
> 
> ...



DPR is entitled to their opinions, just like people in a public forum can post their's, don't think anyone disagrees that DPR has some visibility, but I stopped reading their site a long time ago so I guess it has zero visibility for me. You've posted your opinion on Sony, I'll post mine. I like Sony in that they have created a 3-horse race in the APS-C and FF market. More competition is better. What I don't like, is how Sony is going about it, including DPR (DPR's fixation on dynamic range, for example, borders on a fetish). It's hard to believe, for example, the anti-Canon vitriol and postings are purely from independent users. I say that, not just from how aggressive the pro-Sony comments are in Canon forums (I had a good chuckle from the third post on this thread, hope my comment is not "illegal"), but also the nature of the comments themselves - most lack real substance from those claiming to have truly tried both systems. If you read comments from honest people that have tried both systems, they can tell you that both sides have pros and cons, and how big those pros and cons are, depends on priorities.

Canon's priority is taking consistent quality shots and useability. This is shown in the Canon R's features. It has been commented on many times that the Canon R + RF 50 f/1.2 has an incredibly accurate auto-focus, no easy feat considering the large aperture. This feature alone is probably the most important, hardest to test in varying circumstances, and is usually glossed over with the R. Here is an example of a pro who used a Sony A7R2 but got tired of the missed autofocus, yes I know we're on the A7R3 now, but the point is, don't just go by the number of auto-focus points and assume a mirrorless will nail it every time: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59526785). Google "Sony dust sensor issue" to see how pervasive it is. Who cares about IQ if you're constantly fighting image spots? The R's dust sensor shutter is a *game changer*, but again is glossed over by DPR and Sony fans. How about Canon's anti-flicker technology? Consistent exposure under artificial light, kinda important, kinda game changing, kinda not even tested or even mentioned on DPR. Question - who doesn't shoot under artificial light often? Doesn't matter if fluorescent or LED or other type of bulb, my 5d4's anti-flicker detection goes off all the time, and it was only TDP that called out Sony's A7 3's anti-flicker as completely ineffective: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sony-a7R-III.aspx Canon's build quality is another area that I like over Sony's. Most Canon cameras are made in Japan. Sony is made in Thailand. Why should you care? Because when designers, engineers, and the factory that actually make the cameras/lenses are near, there is a tighter synergy of communication and quality control. It might not be the most economical from a labor and operation cost perspective (most 3rd world countries have more lax environment controls, resulting in cheaper operating costs), but it's something only Canon has done and paid for to ensure the highest quality (most Nikon's are made in China and Thailand). I haven't even gone into the industry-best touchscreen (kinda important), industry-best DPAF, and ergonomics (sorry this area is not subjective with fast lens, it's a real issue on Sony's).

There are more reasons I would choose a Canon R over anything from Sony and Nikon. If someone gifted me a Sony A7R3 or A9, I would ask permission to sell it and get a Canon R. Anytime. Just my opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> But I think the release of $3k and $4k lenses probably means it was simply a rushed product in response to the competition and that it will be followed up with a proper response.


Why does the concurrent launch of a set of excellent, high end lenses suggest the body was rushed to market? There seems to be a rather large hole in your logic.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 20, 2018)

Let me guess, maybe it's because Canon didn't realize they would need a good camera to go with the new lens line they were starting on a while back.

Jack


----------



## 4fun (Dec 20, 2018)

hehe. 

i think most likely explanation is "NO RUSH, but DELAY" ...

Canon wanted to launch 2 EOS R bodies - just like Nikon did. one lower end, one higher end, but did not manage to get the higher-specced model ready on time.

So they just launched the UN-RUSHED, duly marketing-nerfed, pedestrian EOS R ("mirrorfree 6D IIII") along with the UN-RUSHED RF lenses. half of the lenses are simply more expensive but not really better than their EF counterparts, the other half are very expensive, innovative Canon show off fancies. 

this causes me and many others to not to RUSH and buy, but to RELAX and DELAY purchase ...


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 20, 2018)

Tremotino said:


> In Europe the price for the eos R in the internet is about 1800€ (inc adapter). the sony A7 iii 1750€
> The eos r kit about 2500€
> I think its a fair price


Could you please tell us where you'll get an official European import for 1800 euros?


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 20, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why does the concurrent launch of a set of excellent, high end lenses suggest the body was rushed to market? There seems to be a rather large hole in your logic.



How is this logic flawed? Canon did in fact release a few excellent RF lenses and as a result are commanding a premium. The teardown shows they've gone through extensive lengths to modernize their RF lenses with completely new mech/elec designs vs current EF lenses. Lke the teardown says, the lenses were NOT whipped up in the last year. That I get.

The disconnect I feel is with the EOS R body. Like others have mentioned, they probably had 2 on track for release, but couldn't push out the flagship in time, so the EOS R became their launch vehicle. I think that approach probably makes sense, as they can see how the EOS R goes, and tweak the EOS Rs from there. They can even throw in IBIS in there based on recent rumored rumblings. The teardown shows the EOS R doesn't have any better weather sealing that its competitors and equal build quality to Sony. Dustin's review praises a number of things, but also recognizes that it has some ergonomic contradictions, uncharacteristic of Canon.

You can't concurrently launch a new lens mount and lenses without an accompanying body, can you? Canon must have expected that they would receive some media backlash for this release, but coffers in the boardroom probably thought that since we already have 50% of the market, and any FF MILC release would take steam away their FF MILC competitors, they decided to just launch.

That's great for Canon's bottom line, but I'm not sure how that benefits the consumer.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 20, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> How is this logic flawed? Canon did in fact release a few excellent RF lenses and as a result are commanding a premium. The teardown shows they've gone through extensive lengths to modernize their RF lenses with completely new mech/elec designs vs current EF lenses. Lke the teardown says, the lenses were NOT whipped up in the last year. That I get.



I expect the same is true for an all new body. You can’t whip up a mass production ready complex electromechanical box in a year. They likely started work on the camera and its lenses at the same time.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 20, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> How is this logic flawed? Canon did in fact release a few excellent RF lenses and as a result are commanding a premium. The teardown shows they've gone through extensive lengths to modernize their RF lenses with completely new mech/elec designs vs current EF lenses. Lke the teardown says, the lenses were NOT whipped up in the last year. That I get.
> 
> The disconnect I feel is with the EOS R body. Like others have mentioned, they probably had 2 on track for release, but couldn't push out the flagship in time, so the EOS R became their launch vehicle. I think that approach probably makes sense, as they can see how the EOS R goes, and tweak the EOS Rs from there. They can even throw in IBIS in there based on recent rumored rumblings. The teardown shows the EOS R doesn't have any better weather sealing that its competitors and equal build quality to Sony. Dustin's review praises a number of things, but also recognizes that it has some ergonomic contradictions, uncharacteristic of Canon.
> 
> ...



I'm a bit more pessimistic on the Canon bodies on this one. Didn't the initial rumors indicate two R bodies at launch instead of just one (I honestly don't remember)? If so, I think Canon was surprised by Nikon's Zs that included IBIS and improved video features. I'm hypothesizing that Canon had a higher model than the R but that it really fell flat compared to the specs of the Z7, so they only launched the lower model. Canon might have had several prototypes and I'm guessing they had to backtrack on the higher model to deliver something better. Maybe it was IBIS, frame rate, video and/or something else. The whole product cycle takes years, but it's possible to change it in less than one if other prototypes already had done the heavy engineering. This is what a 5DSR replacement in mirrorless looks like to me -- something to compete against the Z7 and the A7R3, and for it to come out less than a year after the R seems strange to me, especially when premium lenses (RF50 and RF28-70) were launched with the R. Yes, those lenses are fantastic on the R but they are mismatched. The R is more suitable to the RF35 or to the types of lenses Nikon released. It would have made more sense if Canon had launched with 2 bodies (R and something higher than that) with the 4 lenses...


----------



## Nelu (Dec 20, 2018)

This feature alone is probably the most important said:


> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59526785[/URL]).


That is quite an eye-opening post from an educated pro user, on dpreview!...
I'm surprise to see that almost no one mentions one of the biggest EOS R advantages: focusing at wide-open aperture.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 20, 2018)

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Isn't guessing fun. My bet is they planned it from day one and knew exactly what they were doing. Perhaps I give Canon too much credit for not being "stupid".

Jack


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 20, 2018)

Nelu said:


> That is quite an eye-opening post from an educated pro user, on dpreview!...
> I'm surprise to see that almost no one mentions one of the biggest EOS R advantages: focusing at wide-open aperture.



Notice the difference in his comments versus most others that bash Canon with very little substance. It's obvious that both Sung Park (the OP in that thread, sungparkphotography.com) and Jeff from gr8photography.com are pro's that have tried both systems extensively, they find pros and cons in both, not the lopsided view that DPR preaches.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Dec 20, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Just my opinion, of course, but the anti-Canon bias will no doubt hurt Canon's bottom line, and thus hurt all the Canon users - at least in the short term. If two card slots makes up for lousy ergonomics, then I guess Sony is best. If IBIS makes up for sub-par color, then I guess Sony is best.
> 
> Dustin Abbot has a nice review, not sure if it has been linked in a thread or not:
> 
> ...



Some good points, but I would say "sub-par color" is an old criticism that is not valid now. I shoot 5d4 primarily and Sony a6500, in low difficult light and certainly much easier to get to good color with the Canon. In looking at DPR's image comparitor you can see how bad the Sony A7II color is, but the A7III is very different, rivaling and maybe passing the 5d4, less yellow bias in skin tones, very accurate on darker skin. I think Sony fixed that. Have to see what Canon's next mirrorless does.


----------



## masterpix (Dec 20, 2018)

A camera preferences, or which is better, is a combination of many things, for example, you can have a wonderful sensor, but if the lenses don't "give it" than what good the camera as an over all? if the AF is not as accurate, what the high MP will give in benefit? Another matter is how easy is to control the camera, how many AF points you have, what kind (and how they work) white balance you have, and we can go asking questions of that sort forever. However, in most cases, it depends on the photographer, for a camera is only a tool to take pictures. So? go and take pictures, enjoy photography and stop comparing "who has a bigger one"...


----------



## padam (Dec 21, 2018)

woodman411 said:


> Canon's priority is taking consistent quality shots and useability. This is shown in the Canon R's features. It has been commented on many times that the Canon R + RF 50 f/1.2 has an incredibly accurate auto-focus, no easy feat considering the large aperture. This feature alone is probably the most important, hardest to test in varying circumstances, and is usually glossed over with the R.



Sorry, but that's just not true. It may not be worse than a 5D was with an EF 50/1.2 (but at least one can try and make a consistently repeatable technique with that instead of relying on the camera altogether)
A lot of time it catches the face, or the wrong eye, or even missing focus completely in some cases. We need to see if the promised firmware update with the continous Eye AF fixes that to some degree. But right now, consistently good AF is not its strong suit either with the EF/RF 50/1.2 (they focus the same way, except the RF lens does not have the focus shift problem) or the 28-70/2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> How is this logic flawed? Canon did in fact release a few excellent RF lenses and as a result are commanding a premium. The teardown shows they've gone through extensive lengths to modernize their RF lenses with completely new mech/elec designs vs current EF lenses. Lke the teardown says, the lenses were NOT whipped up in the last year. That I get.
> 
> The disconnect I feel is with the EOS R body. Like others have mentioned, they probably had 2 on track for release, but couldn't push out the flagship in time, so the EOS R became their launch vehicle. I think that approach probably makes sense, as they can see how the EOS R goes, and tweak the EOS Rs from there. They can even throw in IBIS in there based on recent rumored rumblings. The teardown shows the EOS R doesn't have any better weather sealing that its competitors and equal build quality to Sony. Dustin's review praises a number of things, but also recognizes that it has some ergonomic contradictions, uncharacteristic of Canon.
> 
> ...


Your logic is flawed because the release of a consumer-level FF MILC alongside both consumer and high-end lenses for it in no way implies the body was rushed. What you really seem to be saying is that if Canon had taken more time, they'd have released a FF MILC with features that _you personally_ want, and/or features that are wanted by others or have been suggested in rumors. There's no evidence for that. Canon has been making ILCs and lenses for decades, and they've released 6 MILCs in the past 6 years – logic would suggest they have a damn good idea of development cycle timelines, not that they 'rushed to market'.

Sure, there were rumors of two bodies launched concurrently. There were CR2 rumors about the imminent launch of the 100-400 II starting six years before the lens was actually launched. If you're unclear on the definition of 'rumor', consult a dictionary.

As for the teardown, Roger found the build/sealing similar to a 6-series DSLR. The launch price of the EOS R puts it squarely in 6-series territory. Nothing surprising there.

The EOS R is selling well – that's good for the consumers buying it, and competition in the segment is good for consumers in general. Of course, strong sales are also good for Canon's bottom line...and I hope you realize that is what really matters to Canon, and that 'benefiting the consumer' is absolutely not a priority for Canon, or any company.


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 21, 2018)

padam said:


> Sorry, but that's just not true. It may not be worse than a 5D was with an EF 50/1.2 (but at least one can try and make a consistently repeatable technique with that instead of relying on the camera altogether)
> A lot of time it catches the face, or the wrong eye, or even missing focus completely in some cases. We need to see if the promised firmware update with the continous Eye AF fixes that to some degree. But right now, consistently good AF is not its strong suit either with the EF/RF 50/1.2 (they focus the same way, except the RF lens does not have the focus shift problem) or the 28-70/2.



So you disagree with Bryan Carnathan's findings?



> Sensor-based AF speeds have improved dramatically in recent years. While the fastest AF statement excludes traditionally extremely-fast-focusing DSLRs, Canon has improved sensor-based AF speed to the point of practically matching traditional phase detection AF. When comparing the AF speed of a Canon EOS 5Ds R with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens to that of Canon EOS R with a Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens, my perception was that the R with the RF lens focused slightly faster. But, the R's combination was far quieter. So, I tried the EF lens on both cameras. I struggled to perceive which was faster and also tried the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens with similar results. The bottom line is that the EOS R focuses very impressively fast.
> For those choosing between Sony and Canon MILCs, note that the Canon does not defocus prior to focusing in One Shot AF mode. Especially because of this design difference, the Canon's One Shot AF lock time is dramatically faster than the Sony's. Worth noting is that focus performance is good even with a very-strongly defocused starting point. Note that the Canon EOS R focuses (and determines exposure) with the aperture wide open, similar to the prior EOS models.



If so, please provide your rebuttal, as specifically as possible, thanks.


----------



## padam (Dec 21, 2018)

woodman411 said:


> So you disagree with Bryan Carnathan's findings?


I've read it, and it doesn't say anywhere, that it always finds the nearest eye, which is pretty much what you need if you are shooting at wide-open apertures anything other than straight-on.
Without that, it is just not going to be consistently good (even the Sony continous eye-AF is not perfect, but it is a heck of a lot better)

If you look up more on the RF 50mm f/1.2 You can find plenty of mis-focused examples online. Even some hardcore Canon users agree, that the body is not up to the lenses at this point, and not just because of the single card slot.

Ok, I know, must be user error of course. The thing is though, selecting a precise AF point on this camera is not so easy, one kind of has to accept a certain amount of automation, which is of course much more convenient - if it works the right way...


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 21, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your logic is flawed because the release of a consumer-level FF MILC alongside both consumer and high-end lenses for it in no way implies the body was rushed. What you really seem to be saying is that if Canon had taken more time, they'd have released a FF MILC with features that _you personally_ want, and/or features that are wanted by others or have been suggested in rumors. There's no evidence for that. Canon has been making ILCs and lenses for decades, and they've released 6 MILCs in the past 6 years – logic would suggest they have a damn good idea of development cycle timelines, not that they 'rushed to market'.
> 
> Sure, there were rumors of two bodies launched concurrently. There were CR2 rumors about the imminent launch of the 100-400 II starting six years before the lens was actually launched. If you're unclear on the definition of 'rumor', consult a dictionary.



I'm not saying that Canon needed more time to improve the EOS R. They always meant to release it as is. What I meant is that they probably wanted to launch it together with a higher specced model, with enough differentiation between them. Competition might have changed that schedule and they launched the EOS R first. This is simply my opinion based on a number of rumors originating from this site. Continuous Eye-AF might have been in the launch firmware as well. After all, that's what this site is right? If you are asking me to provide evidence on a opinion based on a rumor, then it definitely isn't me who needs a dictionary....



neuroanatomist said:


> The EOS R is selling well – that's good for the consumers buying it, and competition in the segment is good for consumers in general. Of course, strong sales are also good for Canon's bottom line...and I hope you realize that is what really matters to Canon, and that 'benefiting the consumer' is absolutely not a priority for Canon, or any company.



Agreed, but at the same time, Canon shouldn't get a hall pass simply for being a market leader. Sure, they don't "need" to do anything to benefit the consumer, but the criticism they receive in the press is warranted and should continue for as long as they decide to "not do anything".


----------



## Tremotino (Dec 21, 2018)

4fun said:


> not in the Europe I live in.
> https://geizhals.at/canon-eos-5d-ma...oc=uk&hloc=eu&v=e&togglecountry=set#offerlist
> 
> EOS R generally € 2899 - body only. best deal from reputable dealers 2699.
> Sony A7 III - € 2244 and up [from non-fly-by night-scammers]


Bullshit 
official price from canon.de 2499€
in Munich you can buy it for 2299€ (in a well known store, where I bought it) and internet of course cheaper for 1800€
I'm really sorry if in your Europe it's so expensive...


----------



## Tremotino (Dec 21, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> Could you please tell us where you'll get an official European import for 1800 euros?


ebay.de for example or since pounds are so week you can buy from uk for similar € prices.
I think, if I do more research I will find even cheaper reliable offers.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 21, 2018)

Tremotino said:


> Bullshit
> official price from canon.de 2499€
> in Munich you can buy it for 2299€ (in a well known store, where I bought it) and internet of course cheaper for 1800€
> I'm really sorry if in your Europe it's so expensive...



you are right about the 2499 in Canon.de store. It is also the current street price for non-grey imports. Not sure why it did not come up in my first first quick search. 

But why did you pay 2299 if you think you can get an EOS R for 1800 ? ;-)
And was your 2299 EOS R possibly a demo unit at the store in Munich?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> I'm not saying that Canon needed more time to improve the EOS R. They always meant to release it as is.


You said EOS R was a rushed product. 



jayphotoworks said:


> I think generally speaking the EOS R wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms, and Canon probably does deserve to be in 3rd place at this point in time in the particular review.
> 
> But I think the release of $3k and $4k lenses probably means it was simply a rushed product in response to the competition and that it will be followed up with a proper response.


If they meant to release it as is, how was it rushed? Your logic has more holes than Emmenthal cheese.

As for the purported higher-spec camera, well, if you want to base your opinions on rumors and hearsay, that's fine for you. I prefer to base my opinions on observations, facts and data. 



jayphotoworks said:


> Agreed, but at the same time, Canon shouldn't get a hall pass simply for being a market leader. Sure, they don't "need" to do anything to benefit the consumer, but the criticism they receive in the press is warranted and should continue for as long as they decide to "not do anything".


They don't appear to need a hall pass, given the success of the EOS R to date.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 21, 2018)

Tremotino said:


> Bullshit
> official price from canon.de 2499€
> in Munich you can buy it for 2299€ (in a well known store, where I bought it) and internet of course cheaper for 1800€
> I'm really sorry if in your Europe it's so expensive...


Maybe the Europe being referred to is Norway? If so that is a terrible example. A simple stopover there in the airport nearly bankrupted me once. Jokes aside everywhere is different and sometimes countries are much more expensive than others unfortunately for me as an Aussie I am in one of those countries


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> You said EOS R was a rushed product.
> 
> 
> If they meant to release it as is, how was it rushed? Your logic has more holes than Emmenthal cheese.



I said it was rushed in response to the competition, not rushed to market short on features. Trying to explain things to you is like explaining things to a third grader. I'm sure the third time's the charm for you, or maybe not.



neuroanatomist said:


> As for the purported higher-spec camera, well, if you want to base your opinions on rumors and hearsay, that's fine for you. I prefer to base my opinions on observations, facts and data.



Then don't come on a rumors site and be upset when people discuss rumors. You are clearly in the wrong place. All your observations, facts and data all lead to the same message.. "Canon leads in market share..." we've heard it a million times from you and clearly it and you add nothing new to the conversation.



neuroanatomist said:


> They don't appear to need a hall pass, given the success of the EOS R to date.



Sure, and don't feel sour grapes when the reviews don't favor it as well as you would like. Not every review site is anti-Canon, but I'm sure you beg to differ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> I said it was rushed in response to the competition, not rushed to market short on features. Trying to explain things to you is like explaining things to a third grader. I'm sure the third time's the charm for you, or maybe not.


Ironic that my third grader has better logical comprehension than you've demonstrated to this point. But even she doesn't base entire arguments on rumors. 



jayphotoworks said:


> Then don't come on a rumors site and be upset when people discuss rumors. You are clearly in the wrong place. All your observations, facts and data all lead to the same message.. "Canon leads in market share..." we've heard it a million times from you and clearly it and you add nothing new to the conversation.


It's unfortunate that you're upset by the truth. Regrettably, that's becoming all too common these days. 



jayphotoworks said:


> Sure, and don't feel sour grapes when the reviews don't favor it as well as you would like. Not every review site is anti-Canon, but I'm sure you beg to differ.


Why would I be disappointed if the EOS R (or any camera) gets mediocre or poor reviews? Yes, DPR has an obvious bias, which makes them unreliable in terms of brand comparison. They are also in some cases apparently inept (at least regarding Canon testing – e.g., using settings the manual recommends against when evaluating performance). But there are plenty of good review sites out there.


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 22, 2018)

padam said:


> I've read it, and it doesn't say anywhere, that it always finds the nearest eye, which is pretty much what you need if you are shooting at wide-open apertures anything other than straight-on.
> Without that, it is just not going to be consistently good (even the Sony continous eye-AF is not perfect, but it is a heck of a lot better)
> 
> If you look up more on the RF 50mm f/1.2 You can find plenty of mis-focused examples online. Even some hardcore Canon users agree, that the body is not up to the lenses at this point, and not just because of the single card slot.
> ...



If I understand correctly, your issue is primarily the face/eye detect focusing. Which is strange because the fact detect on my 5d4 is pretty accurate at f/1.2 for the nearest eye. Hopefully a firmware update can help.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ironic that my third grader has better logical comprehension than you've demonstrated to this point. But even she doesn't base entire arguments on rumors.



The point yet eludes you again. Come back again when have something new to add. Arguing about comprehension and semantics is tiring and detracts from the entire conversation, but that's about all you can offer up I see.



neuroanatomist said:


> It's unfortunate that you're upset by the truth. Regrettably, that's becoming all too common these days.



The real truth is most other members here have something new to add, having tried something new or willing to offer a different vantage point. You on the other hand, continue on the same path with the same information. It's quite boring honestly. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Why would I be disappointed if the EOS R (or any camera) gets mediocre or poor reviews? Yes, DPR has an obvious bias, which makes them unreliable in terms of brand comparison. They are also in some cases apparently inept (at least regarding Canon testing – e.g., using settings the manual recommends against when evaluating performance). But there are plenty of good review sites out there.



Reviewers are human and are not infallible. You seem to harp on the same point again and again and consider them unreliable in brand comparisons based on this point. I guess that also means that DPR's recent IBIS article is also anti-Canon since they plan on considering not having IBIS a con. From your viewpoint, Canon had no need to introduce this because the "market" didn't need it. Personally, I was suspect of Canon's AF system for quite some time after the 1D3 fiasco in which they vehemently denied anything was wrong. It wasn't until the press persevered that they relented and eventually offered a fix. I had one of those original cameras.. A sports flagship that can't track AF properly. 

Like I said in my original post, regardless of how you feel, they command a large readership and they have some influence over the market. You... are just you. If you have nothing new to add, besides the usual passive aggressive nature in your replies. Let it go and let others who have something new to say take your place. You won't be missed..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> The real truth is most other members here have something new to add, having tried something new or willing to offer a different vantage point.


New vantage points are welcome. But when those vantage points promote logical fallacies, those promulgating them should not be surprised when they are called on it. It seems you were deeply offended by that, which is unfortunate.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> New vantage points are welcome. But when those vantage points promote logical fallacies, those promulgating them should not be surprised when they are called on it. It seems you were deeply offended by that, which is unfortunate.



It became a logical fallacy when you misunderstood what was being conveyed and chose to interpret it in a way that positions yourself to craft your usual themes of condescension and passive aggressive retort. You can choose to start an engaging dialog or ask for clarification. Civility is what you lack and that is what truly offends me, and it is unfortunate you choose to govern yourself this way.

But the biggest lesson I've learnt today is that I should take my own advice. I recommended that people that do not like DPR's reviews to simply not read them. Yet, I'm reading and responding to these type of posts here. I should probably do the same the next time you start this form of dialog. Like a third grader, if you ignore them a few times, they'll lose interest and move on somewhere else. I guess the ignore list would be the same form of vehicle here to achieve that in this domain.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 22, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> The real truth is most other members here have something new to add, having tried something new or willing to offer a different vantage point. You on the other hand, continue on the same path with the same information. It's quite boring honestly.


With respect, I think different vantage points are welcome if they are constructive, verifiable by data and/or logically justifiable. I don't know about the others but I personally don't categorize hearsays and unsubstantiated claims as novel viewpoints and throw them into the unsubstantiated speculation bin.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 22, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> With respect, I think different vantage points are welcome if they are constructive, verifiable by data and/or logically justifiable. I don't know about the others but I personally don't categorize hearsays and unsubstantiated claims as novel viewpoints and throw them into the unsubstantiated speculation bin.



I can accept that. At the same time, I think there can be capacity for us to sometimes discuss speculative based viewpoints where we don't always have immediately verifiable data.. The nature of the site including it's name would seem to be the ideal platform to have that form of dialog.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 22, 2018)

the facts are well established: 
* EOS R mount is "really right" 
* EOS R camera body lacks important features and is higher priced than competition - this earns it some critical reviews and slight disappointment by many here - except the usual Canon Defense League members
* 2 RF lenses are stellar performers, but "exotic niche" glass, not relevant to majority of (potential) R customers. and they are in strange contrast to the pedestrian EOS R body
* 2 RF lenses are neither much better nor more compact than EF versions, but significantly more expensive. 
* refusal to clearly communicate plans for their 4 ILC product lines - EF, EF-S, EF-M, R - eg by way of clear roadmaps" and "official company statements" instead of only vague and unclear interviews causes a lot of avoidable uncertainty for existing and potential new Canon customers and is not to Canon's advantage, but helps their competitors - irrespective of whether or not Canon retains market leadership for now ...

no amount of "semantics wanking" can change those facts. 

Best response from our end is simply not to buy for now. If/when sales are less than expected, Canon will lower prices (eg via "cash back" promotions) and/or come up with products that are better featured (camera bodies) and targeted at more mainstream market segments (lenses).


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 22, 2018)

4fun said:


> the facts are well established:
> * EOS R camera body lacks important features and is higher priced than competition - this earns it some critical reviews and slight disappointment by many here - except the usual Canon Defense League members


Purely subjective and not a fact. It is a two way street. EOS-R has some important features (e.g. DPAF, ability to focus wide open to -6EV, c-log, etc.) that the others do not have. Price is set based on market analysis not the feature set that the camera does not have!



4fun said:


> * 2 RF lenses are neither much better nor more compact than EF versions, but significantly more expensive.


False claim. Prices quoted from Canon CA site:
RF 24–105mm F/4L IS USM (MSRP: $1,449.99) vs. EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (MSRP: $1,449.99)
RF 35mm F/1.8 Macro IS STM (MSRP: $649.99) vs. EF 35mm f/2 IS USM (MSRP: $879.99)
The two affordable RF lenses based on your classification are either set to have the same price or cheaper and partially have better features, e.g. RF 35mm lens is brighter and has Macro capability.



4fun said:


> * refusal to clearly communicate plans for their 4 ILC product lines - EF, EF-S, EF-M, R - eg by way of clear roadmaps" and "official company statements" instead of only vague and unclear interviews causes a lot of avoidable uncertainty for existing and potential new Canon customers and is not to Canon's advantage, but helps their competitors.


Businesses report to and get approval from their shareholders. Who said that they should reveal their future plans and report to yourself? Do you know next year's plan of Amazon, Uber or Apple? Why you want it from Canon then?


----------



## 4fun (Dec 22, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Businesses report to and get approval from their shareholders. Who said that they should reveal their future plans and report to yourself? Do you know next year's plan of Amazon, Uber or Apple? Why you want it from Canon then?



Nobody is asking them to publish their internal financial planning or "real business secrets". And it is not only in my interest and that of many other interested (potential) buyers. First and foremost it would be in Canon's own best corporate and financial interest to give their existing and potential new customers as specific an outlook as possible on what products they can expect for the current 4 product lines and a timeline with it ...aka "roadmap". Other reputable and successful companies have no problem doing so.

btw: I also consider Apple's policy of (attempted) surprise product launches without previous announcement as "childish", "outdated" and "sub-optimal" in the 21st century. For the same reasons as for Canon. Treating grown-up, well-informed customers like "consumer idiots" or 3-year old chilren who "don't need to know, but are best surprised" was already a bad idea back in the 1960s and it is an even worse idea today.

If you want as many people as possible to board your bus, train or plane ... it is smart to clearly communicate what destination you are going to ... along with scheduled departure and arrival times ... as well as stops en route. Same applies to makers of tangible products, includuing "consumer products". Especially when we are really talking about "product eco-systems". After all, Canon is not a start-up just launching its first product via kickstarter campaign, not knowing whether they'll be able to actually make it and what might come next ...


----------



## Tremotino (Dec 22, 2018)

4fun said:


> you are right about the 2499 in Canon.de store. It is also the current street price for non-grey imports. Not sure why it did not come up in my first first quick search.
> 
> But why did you pay 2299 if you think you can get an EOS R for 1800 ? ;-)
> And was your 2299 EOS R possibly a demo unit at the store in Munich?


it was new  
I got a refund of 400€ for my old camera and I don't like to buy online


----------



## Tremotino (Dec 22, 2018)

4fun said:


> Nobody is asking them to publish their internal financial planning or "real business secrets". And it is not only in my interest and that of many other interested (potential) buyers. First and foremost it would be in Canon's own best corporate and financial interest to give their existing and potential new customers as specific an outlook as possible on what products they can expect for the current 4 product lines and a timeline with it ...aka "roadmap". Other reputable and successful companies have no problem doing so.


You need to think one step further, just as simple as that.
we know exactly what canon will bring to the market in the next 3 years for the rf system and we know also that it won't happen from one day to another. So just let canon bring out the high mp camera, the sports camera, they will for sure all be introduced in the near future  also the standard zooms will come for the rf system and very nice primes and even more great stuff.
if they show as the roadmap for the rf, they need to show us also the one for the ef. maybe they just don't want us to say that the ef system got enough lenses and it's time for new stuff. (which everyone knows by now)

btw. the childish stuff just let it at home, otherview we can stop here discussing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> It became a logical fallacy when you misunderstood what was being conveyed and chose to interpret it in a way that positions yourself to craft your usual themes of condescension and passive aggressive retort. You can choose to start an engaging dialog or ask for clarification. Civility is what you lack and that is what truly offends me, and it is unfortunate you choose to govern yourself this way.
> 
> But the biggest lesson I've learnt today is that I should take my own advice. I recommended that people that do not like DPR's reviews to simply not read them. Yet, I'm reading and responding to these type of posts here. I should probably do the same the next time you start this form of dialog. Like a third grader, if you ignore them a few times, they'll lose interest and move on somewhere else. I guess the ignore list would be the same form of vehicle here to achieve that in this domain.


Civility? You might want to re-read the discussion. I started with a request for clarification and the statement that there seemed to be a gap in your logic. The discussion remained civil until you chose to compare me to a third grader. Logically, you should be truly offended by _your own_ behavior. 

As for the content, it started as a logical fallacy – yours. The EOS R was rushed to market because Nikon launched a FF MILC, and your idea was 'supported' by Canon launching one consumer-grade lens, a standard L lens, and two high end lenses with it, but _not _launching a _rumored_ second higher-spec model. First off, can a high-end lens not be used on a lower spec body? Lol, of course that's a fallacy. Lots of people put L-lenses on APS-C bodies costing far less than the lens. More importantly, your argument is based on a _rumor_. Sure, this is the place for rumors, it's right in the name. And sure, in April to early July of this year there were several 'two Canon FF MILCs coming' rumors. But then in mid-July (soon after the last two-camera post), Craig (CRguy) apologized for the messy state of the recent rumors on Canon FF MILCs:


Canon Rumors said:


> For the record, we’re backtracking on things we’ve posted in recent weeks. I don’t like it, but it happens.
> 
> As for the full frame mirrorless, I’m going to tone down significantly what I report on the topic until I get information that I know to be legit, as to not unintentionally mislead the fine readers of this site.


In other words, the central pillar of suppprt for your claim was previously walked back by its creator. Your opinion is based not just on a rumor, but on a_ retracted _rumor. A big lesson you _could_ learn today is to base your opinions on fact, but I suspect you'll choose to ignore that lesson in favor of more name-calling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Purely subjective and not a fact. It is a two way street. EOS-R has some important features (e.g. DPAF, ability to focus wide open to -6EV, c-log, etc.) that the others do not have. Price is set based on market analysis not the feature set that the camera does not have!
> 
> False claim. Prices quoted from Canon CA site:
> RF 24–105mm F/4L IS USM (MSRP: $1,449.99) vs. EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (MSRP: $1,449.99)
> ...


Well, false claims and ignorance of facts are the norm for 4fun/mirage/fullstop/AvTvM. Nothing new there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2018)

4fun said:


> Nobody is asking them to publish their internal financial planning or "real business secrets". And it is not only in my interest and that of many other interested (potential) buyers. First and foremost it would be in Canon's own best corporate and financial interest to give their existing and potential new customers as specific an outlook as possible on what products they can expect for the current 4 product lines and a timeline with it ...aka "roadmap". Other reputable and successful companies have no problem doing so.
> 
> btw: I also consider Apple's policy of (attempted) surprise product launches without previous announcement as "childish", "outdated" and "sub-optimal" in the 21st century. For the same reasons as for Canon. Treating grown-up, well-informed customers like "consumer idiots" or 3-year old chilren who "don't need to know, but are best surprised" was already a bad idea back in the 1960s and it is an even worse idea today.
> 
> If you want as many people as possible to board your bus, train or plane ... it is smart to clearly communicate what destination you are going to ... along with scheduled departure and arrival times ... as well as stops en route. Same applies to makers of tangible products, includuing "consumer products". Especially when we are really talking about "product eco-systems". After all, Canon is not a start-up just launching its first product via kickstarter campaign, not knowing whether they'll be able to actually make it and what might come next ...


Clearly, Canon and Apple disagree with you, and both are more successful in their markets than their competitors who do publish roadmaps. 

From a personal standpoint, I agree with you. I'd like to know what's coming down the pike from both Canon and Apple, and approximately when. That knowledge would inform my buying decisions. I want to buy my daughter a new laptop, will the MacBook be refreshed soon? How will it compare to the new MB Air? Apple won't say. On the other hand, I could approach it more simply – any of the current Mac laptops will meet her needs for several years, so if I buy her an 'outdated' MacBook now and a new one comes out next month, how does that hurt me?

But importantly, I don't make the mistake of confusing my personal desires with what's best for a particular corporation.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 22, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Purely subjective and not a fact. It is a two way street. EOS-R has some important features (e.g. DPAF, ability to focus wide open to -6EV, c-log, etc.) that the others do not have. Price is set based on market analysis not the feature set that the camera does not have!
> 
> 
> False claim. Prices quoted from Canon CA site:
> ...




Excellent post.

As is so often the case, people make up crap, or just voice what is clearly an opinion, then state it as fact. Obviously, some folks don't know what facts are - or more often - choose to ignore them.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Civility? You might want to re-read the discussion. I started with a request for clarification and the statement that there seemed to be a gap in your logic. The discussion remained civil until you chose to compare me to a third grader. Logically, you should be truly offended by _your own_ behavior.
> 
> As for the content, it started as a logical fallacy – yours. The EOS R was rushed to market because Nikon launched a FF MILC, and your idea was 'supported' by Canon launching one consumer-grade lens, a standard L lens, and two high end lenses with it, but _not _launching a _rumored_ second higher-spec model. First off, can a high-end lens not be used on a lower spec body? Lol, of course that's a fallacy. Lots of people put L-lenses on APS-C bodies costing far less than the lens. More importantly, your argument is based on a _rumor_. Sure, this is the place for rumors, it's right in the name. And sure, in April to early July of this year there were several 'two Canon FF MILCs coming' rumors. But then in mid-July (soon after the last two-camera post), Craig (CRguy) apologized for the messy state of the recent rumors on Canon FF MILCs:
> 
> In other words, the central pillar of suppprt for your claim was previously walked back by its creator. Your opinion is based not just on a rumor, but on a_ retracted _rumor. A big lesson you _could_ learn today is to base your opinions on fact, but I suspect you'll choose to ignore that lesson in favor of more name-calling.



At this stage, I simply refuse to continue this dialog with you since as usual, you prefer to create the stage that favors whatever tangent you seem to be on. 

For the record, when I clarified, you proceeded to misinterpret further without any consideration for what was being said. I'm sure we could have had a civil discussion if you didn't proceed to further antagonize the discussion with comparisons to Swiss cheese. You can choose to call me out however you wish, but you should accept being called out on when your behavior is less than ideal.

This is your usual attitude here and has been called out by others. You don't have to choose to change, But yes, I've learnt my lesson today. The most civil approach would be to ignore all of your replies in the first place.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> At this stage, I simply refuse to continue this dialog with you since as usual, you prefer to create the stage that favors whatever tangent you seem to be on.
> 
> For the record, when I clarified, you proceeded to misinterpret further without any consideration for what was being said. I'm sure we could have had a civil discussion if you didn't proceed to further antagonize the discussion with comparisons to Swiss cheese. You can choose to call me out however you wish, but you should accept being called out on when your behavior is less than ideal.
> 
> This is your usual attitude here and has been called out by others. You don't have to choose to change, But yes, I've learnt my lesson today. The most civil approach would be to ignore all of your replies in the first place.


"I simply refuse to continue this dialog but for the record when I......"

"I should probably take my own advice and just ignore your replies, but when you said......"

LOL.

What you seem to be saying now is, "I'm losing so I'm going to just take my marbles and go home." In that context, your repeated references to third graders make perfect sense.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 22, 2018)

Tremotino said:


> You need to think one step further, just as simple as that.
> we know exactly what canon will bring to the market in the next 3 years for the rf system and we know also that it won't happen from one day to another. So just let canon bring out the high mp camera, the sports camera, they will for sure all be introduced in the near future  also the standard zooms will come for the rf system and very nice primes and even more great stuff.
> if they show as the roadmap for the rf, they need to show us also the one for the ef. maybe they just don't want us to say that the ef system got enough lenses and it's time for new stuff. (which everyone knows by now)
> 
> btw. the childish stuff just let it at home, otherview we can stop here discussing.



Apologies for the childish activity here. Rather than trying to get in the last word, I've simply added the instigator to my ignore list, so we can finally get back to the discussion at hand.

I felt that Canon's first effort was decent, but not groundbreaking. Buying a first gen product has it's risks and I didn't wade into Sony until the third gen came about. That was right at the time they revamped their color science and menu ergonomics.

Canon is still working out the firmware as we speak with it's continuous Eye-AF inplementation. If some of the rumors hold true including IBIS, it would be prudent to at least wait for announcement of their flagship to see where things stand.

I mentioned earlier that DPR also now considers lack of IBIS a con as all of the other manufacturers offer it in some form. Lens IS has it's merits for longer FLs, but offering both would be truly ideal. Not every lens has stabilization.

The average consumer shooting video for example in fully auto mode would definitely benefit from this. Although not entirely relevant to Canon, I have a Hero 7 and even with hypersmooth it fails entirely once the light levels drop because it can't correct slower shutter speeds and you get spagehtti lights and motion blur. Of course you can increase the shutter speed and push the ISO, but not everyone is aware of the correlation. Later firmware revisions did exactly that to mitigate the issue.


----------



## dcm (Dec 22, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> I felt that Canon's first effort was decent, but not groundbreaking.



This thread is reminiscent of the EOS M discussions 5 years ago. 

I think we lose sight of "best" being a relative term, not an absolute. It depends on how you measure it. Some look at spec sheet comparisons - years ago I did. That's one measure of best. He who has the most +'s or pros wins. But the spec sheet battle is usually the focus of the newest entrants to the market that are trying to gain market share since they have little else to woo customers. This is true in any business or market. I've watched it play out over and over again in the computer business the last 40 years. 

Now I consider what is "best" for my needs, which never includes the entire spec sheet and often includes things not on the spec sheet. For 20+ years I used an A1 (film) just fine. From there I migrated from G3 to S95 to M to M3 to M5 for casual, travel, and trail photography and from a 550D to 6D to 1DX2 for serious photography. I think they were/are the "best" for me. 
The limiting factor in my photography is usually my ability, not the equipment. As my skills improve and interests expand, I upgrade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> Apologies for the childish activity here. Rather than trying to get in the last word, I've simply added the instigator to my ignore list,


Despite the pathetically disingenuous way in which you are 'not' trying to get the last word in, I appreciate that you are willing to apologize for your childishness (while notably not admitting your role in instigating it).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 22, 2018)

Reminds me of the garbage discussions we are suffering here about Brexit, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" the politicians keep telling us. On checking Wikipedia it seems that the origin of the phrase is from Voltaiire: "The best is the enemy of the good" (_le mieux est l'ennemi du bien_). Then, I came across: Robert Watson-Watt, who developed early warning radar in Britain to counter the rapid growth of the Luftwaffe, propounded a "cult of the imperfect", which he stated as "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes", which just about sums it all up.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 22, 2018)

dcm said:


> This thread is reminiscent of the EOS M discussions 5 years ago.
> 
> I think we lose sight of "best" being a relative term, not an absolute. It depends on how you measure it. Some look at spec sheet comparisons - years ago I did. That's one measure of best. He who has the most +'s or pros wins. But the spec sheet battle is usually the focus of the newest entrants to the market that are trying to gain market share since they have little else to woo customers. This is true in any business or market. I've watched it play out over and over again in the computer business the last 40 years.
> 
> ...



Yes, this is true. New entrants do need to do "more" to entice consumers. With that being said, sometimes those spec sheet items can be truly useful and define specs that others do follow behind. Eventually they become standard.

Canon doesn't need to do any of that, but the criticism including being placed 3rd is a result of that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2018)

dcm said:


> I think we lose sight of "best" being a relative term, not an absolute. It depends on how you measure it. Some look at spec sheet comparisons - years ago I did. That's one measure of best.


Exactly. People lose sight of the fact that everyone defines 'best' for themselves. It's regrettably common on these forums for posters to assume that their own personal definition of 'best' applies universally.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 22, 2018)

The problem with spec sheets is that we all want a camera which has "all the best" and at a reasonable cost, but many of us fail to realize that some of our desires are conflicting and that our perfect camera is impossible. For example, I want a fast long lens of high quality that is light, affordable, and waterproof so I can take it in the canoe..... It's just not going to happen!


----------



## 4fun (Dec 22, 2018)

i have to disagree here. most of the forum posters here are NOT asking for totally unrealistic and/or mutually conflicting specs. Typically all we want is Canon products to be "at least on par" with competitor's products in the same price bracket.

Most of the criticism is totally justified. No IBIS is a fact, Sh*tty 4k implementation compared to competition is a fact. Not everybody will need or want all of these features and functionalities, but some or many do. None of it is just "useless spec sheet fluff and chaff". Only the few typical Canon Defenders / fan boyz try to make it look like that.

that's were a lot of the controversy on this forum (and many others) comes from. devoted brand loyalists trying to tell "critical observers" that their criticism is 1. totally irrelevant, 2. totally unfounded, 3. "Canon sells most, Canon knows best" and 4. is nothing but whining. they use all sorts of demagogical tactics, anywhere from condescending to vicious personal attacks in an attempt to discredit critical posters.

luckily i don't give a rats ass sbout them. lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2018)

And yet you keep responding to them, suggesting you have some sort of fetish for rodent hindquarters.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 23, 2018)

Wife: "What are you still doing online?"
Me: "Oh, just reading people scolding each other over and over and over and over."
Wife: "Your son needs a diaper change!"


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> i have to disagree here. most of the forum posters here are NOT asking for totally unrealistic and/or mutually conflicting specs. Typically all we want is Canon products to be "at least on par" with competitor's products in the same price bracket.
> 
> Most of the criticism is totally justified. No IBIS is a fact, Sh*tty 4k implementation compared to competition is a fact. Not everybody will need or want all of these features and functionalities, but some or many do. None of it is just "useless spec sheet fluff and chaff". Only the few typical Canon Defenders / fan boyz try to make it look like that.



But what do you mean by 'on par'?
Sony has one more stop DR, Canon has the very good touch screen (Sony's is pants)
Sony has an excellent eye AF (great for portraits), Canon has the much-lauded DPAF (great for low light)
Sony has sensor with good shadow recovery, Canon has lenses with seemingly superior edge performance
Sony still produces cameras with variable heat issues, Canon tries not to introduce technology that may cause heat issues because they want that when a pro turns the video on they do not need to worry about when it will crap out.
Sony produce a camera that is small, Canon produce a camera that is comfortable to hold for long periods with heavy pro-grade lenses.

And so the list goes on. Clearly anyone asking for Canon to be 'on par' is based on what they want. Canon has a long history of providing cameras with seemingly inferior spec sheet but people continually praise them ofr improving the photographic experience and the EOS-R seems to continue that thought process.
So it seems that because Canon are clearly superior in areas that people who have never used the camera are not interested in. As ever in technology, 'pick your compromises'

So I beg to differ.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> i have to disagree here. most of the forum posters here are NOT asking for totally unrealistic and/or mutually conflicting specs. Typically all we want is Canon products to be "at least on par" with competitor's products in the same price bracket.
> 
> Most of the criticism is totally justified. No IBIS is a fact, Sh*tty 4k implementation compared to competition is a fact. Not everybody will need or want all of these features and functionalities, but some or many do. None of it is just "useless spec sheet fluff and chaff". Only the few typical Canon Defenders / fan boyz try to make it look like that.
> 
> ...



I'm probably what you would consider a brand loyalist. I will never buy anything from Sony again (and not just cameras), for a multitude of reasons. I dislike Nikon ergonomics, and if you think that Canon wireless connectivity is bad, try Nikon!

That said, I am also critical of Canon. Yes, I think that the R should have had IBIS, but I did not expect to see it. My bet is that it will be one of the features used to differentiate a higher end R. Same with burst rate, look for 30+fps on a higher end R... 4K? none of us know why Canon's is so bad, so we can only speculate as to why.

If you want to really see how mirrorless is done well, look to Olympus. As far as innovation goes, Canon Nikon, and Sony are all playing catch-up. The Canon M series are nice, but just don't compare to Oly, but then again the flagship M is on sale here for $800, against $1800 for the Ol, also on sale. You want the features, you pay the dollars.... Same with Canon, but at the moment we only have the one camera out there on the R lineup, so at the moment we have even more speculation than normal, but not enough data points to ground it. So yes, look to Olympus and their low end cameras, then look at their high end cameras at 4 times the price, and then remember that the R is just the first and we have no idea what is coming.

Oh yes, about Bluetooth... HOW CAN YOU MAKE A CAMERA WITH BLUETOOTH THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT A BLUETOOTH HEADSET!


----------



## Tremotino (Dec 23, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> Canon is still working out the firmware as we speak with it's continuous Eye-AF inplementation. If some of the rumors hold true including IBIS, it would be prudent to at least wait for announcement of their flagship to see where things stand.


Eye-AF is a good example. 
Nowadays people are like: You can't take an eye-sharp portrait without Eye-AF, that's too difficult. 
Just because there exist Eye-AF, it's not a must have feature for great pictures or a great camera. Are the other photographers all idiots because they don't use it/want it?
I was alwas proud of my pictures when I got the eye sharp. For me it's lot of fun to nail it. Every single time. Eye-AF is fine (a really cool feature, maybe one day when I will be old and my eyes are week, I will use for sure eye-af for focussing) but less challenging. 
I don't like when people talk about spec like it's the only way of modern photography. 
Every time I buy a new camera, there are so many new feature/ improved technology _I am really HAPPY with it. _The features my camera is missing now will be integrated in my next one, so I know already now, my next camera will please me again. 

btw comparison- The root of All unhappiness in live 
start appreciate what you have/can afford


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> luckily i don't give a rats ass sbout them. lol


Luckily, Canon and many forum members think the same about what you have stated.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 23, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Luckily, Canon and many forum members think the same about what you have stated.



Yes, in fact most of what we say here have little relevance for Canon. They are neither interested in what we feel about how they are doing whether that is a "kudos," or "you're ******* buddy.." unless there are some big name social influencers here I don't know about. Fortunately, there are quite a number of review sites, some of which are quite large which share some critical views that 4fun has mentioned. That has much more of an impact.

Not every feature or decision is applicable to everyone, but for some things, when most of the competition have it, and you chose to exclude it, you can guarantee that the resulting review will experience some media backlash.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Wife: "What are you still doing online?"
> Me: "Oh, just reading people scolding each other over and over and over and over."
> Wife: "Your son needs a diaper change!"



I realize "when you argue with stupid people, they end up dragging you down to their level and beat you with experience." Not falling into their trap in the first place is the best way...


----------



## Talys (Dec 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> i have to disagree here. most of the forum posters here are NOT asking for totally unrealistic and/or mutually conflicting specs. Typically all we want is Canon products to be "at least on par" with competitor's products in the same price bracket.
> 
> Most of the criticism is totally justified. No IBIS is a fact, Sh*tty 4k implementation compared to competition is a fact. Not everybody will need or want all of these features and functionalities, but some or many do. None of it is just "useless spec sheet fluff and chaff". Only the few typical Canon Defenders / fan boyz try to make it look like that.
> 
> ...



No, most forum posters aren't asking for totally unrealistic or mutually conflicting specs. But there are some people who are basically asking why Canon can't take the best from every camera manufacturer and stuff it into one affordable body. One could just as easily ask, why can't Sony put DPAF into their cameras already? Or for that matter, consumer grade lenses that dont suck? 

Canon or Sony aren't trying to fleece you and they aren't trying to tell you how to shoot. You're just faced with different companies whose systems have different strengths and features and at least in 2018, it is not possible to have it all. 

For me, Canon remains my clear favorite, at the end of the day, mostly because I like their camera bodies and lenses better. Sure, nearly every Canon I've used has been infuriatingly imperfect. But so has been every other camera and at the end of the day I want to take photos today, not wait for some magical unicorn of tomorrow.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 23, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> I realize "when you argue with stupid people, they end up dragging you down to their level and beat you with experience." Not falling into their trap in the first place is the best way...



No offense, but you are not helping your own standing. You are trying to portray yourself as being on higher ground than your "opponent" - yet, you can't help continuing with the insults.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> No, most forum posters aren't asking for totally unrealistic or mutually conflicting specs. But there are some people who are basically asking why Canon can't take the best from every camera manufacturer and stuff it into one affordable body. One could just as easily ask, why can't Sony put DPAF into their cameras already? Or for that matter, consumer grade lenses that dont suck?
> 
> Canon or Sony aren't trying to fleece you and they aren't trying to tell you how to shoot. You're just faced with different companies whose systems have different strengths and features and at least in 2018, it is not possible to have it all.
> 
> For me, Canon remains my clear favorite, at the end of the day, mostly because I like their camera bodies and lenses better. Sure, nearly every Canon I've used has been infuriatingly imperfect. But so has been every other camera and at the end of the day I want to take photos today, not wait for some magical unicorn of tomorrow.



Yes, we all know that the Canon R has no IBIS and is behind others in FPS and video. But they also have things that the competitors don't have. And poster after poster ignore that fact. They ignore it because it doesn't align with their arguments. When others point out the flaws in their arguments, they resort to name calling. Personally, I am quite glad that Canon has included a fully articulating screen, a dust protection curtain, and a control ring on the new lenses and the adapter. The fact these features are not on any other FF mirrorless camera seems to be ignored by all those who say that Canon is not "on par" with the other FF mirrorless cameras in its class. I'm also glad they have arguably the best EVF, the best touch screen and the best ergonomics and menu layout. But, of course, those things don't count for much either.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 23, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Yes, we all know that the Canon R has no IBIS and is behind others in FPS and video. But they also have things that the competitors don't have. And poster after poster ignore that fact. They ignore it because it doesn't align with their arguments. When others point out the flaws in their arguments, they resort to name calling. Personally, I am quite glad that Canon has included a fully articulating screen, a dust protection curtain, and a control ring on the new lenses and the adapter. The fact these features are not on any other FF mirrorless camera seems to be ignored by all those who say that Canon is not "on par" with the other FF mirrorless cameras in its class. I'm also glad they have arguably the best EVF, the best touch screen and the best ergonomics and menu layout. But, of course, those things don't count for much either.



The OP was why Canon fared poorly in the 3 way test. It's not a singular voice from "some" of us.

What Canon doesn't have is becoming commonplace amongst it peers. Not one, but many. Yes, Canon has certain things that nobody else has, but those things it doesn't have impacts the creative process and when other have it, you will be judged against that benchmark. You simply have to compromise if you decide to go with Canon for those areas. That is what some reviewers are commenting negatively on.

I can't test how much better Canon's color science, ergonomics and pro support are, but I can damn tell you how poor the rolling shutter is, crop and lack of IBIS are among other cameras in the range. That's why it did poorly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2018)

dak723 said:


> No offense, but you are not helping your own standing. You are trying to portray yourself as being on higher ground than your "opponent" - yet, you can't help continuing with the insults.


Indeed. But then, I predicted that earlier today: 


neuroanatomist said:


> A big lesson you _could_ learn today is to base your opinions on fact, but I suspect you'll choose to ignore that lesson in favor of more name-calling.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 23, 2018)

dak723 said:


> No offense, but you are not helping your own standing. You are trying to portray yourself as being on higher ground than your "opponent" - yet, you can't help continuing with the insults.



I can accept that observation. It's an internet argument.. an hour in, everyone has a laugh, 24 hours later people dont even remember who was involved.. at least someone found it amusing before having to do a diaper change.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> No, most forum posters aren't asking for totally unrealistic or mutually conflicting specs. But there are some people who are basically asking why Canon can't take the best from every camera manufacturer and stuff it into one affordable body. One could just as easily ask, why can't Sony put DPAF into their cameras already? Or for that matter, consumer grade lenses that dont suck?
> 
> Canon or Sony aren't trying to fleece you and they aren't trying to tell you how to shoot. You're just faced with different companies whose systems have different strengths and features and at least in 2018, it is not possible to have it all.
> 
> For me, Canon remains my clear favorite, at the end of the day, mostly because I like their camera bodies and lenses better. Sure, nearly every Canon I've used has been infuriatingly imperfect. But so has been every other camera and at the end of the day I want to take photos today, not wait for some magical unicorn of tomorrow.


But canon cameras are equal to their competitors. Just not in a couple of areas like ibis or 4k where a minority of posters and a majority of youtubers want equality. Canon are tougher. That's a massive plus for most. Canon are better ergonomically. That is a massive plus for most. Canon destroys the competition in lenses. That is a massive plus to anyone with sense. Canon are innovative where others aren't . The adapters the control ring. A sensor that is covered when removing lenses. All things that really matter. Yet are ignored by spec heads that spend more time posting and less time shooting. All you want is a spec sheet that you can show off as a way to compensate for something else that is lacking( or so i have to assume). What makes no sense is that you spend all your time crying like a toddler that didn't get the biggest peice of cake instead of buying the camera that has the spec sheet you want. That has to be a mental illness right there doesn't it


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 23, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> The OP was why Canon fared poorly in the 3 way test. It's not a singular voice from "some" of us.
> 
> What Canon doesn't have is becoming commonplace amongst it peers. Not one, but many. Yes, Canon has certain things that nobody else has, but those things it doesn't have impacts the creative process and when other have it, you will be judged against that benchmark. You simply have to compromise if you decide to go with Canon for those areas. That is what some reviewers are commenting negatively on.
> 
> I can't test how much better Canon's color science, ergonomics and pro support are, but I can damn tell you how poor the rolling shutter is, crop and lack of IBIS are among other cameras in the range. That's why it did poorly.


If you follow Canon's product development strategy and the Japanese corporate culture you understand that the "benchmark" that Canon uses to compare its newer products against is its own set of products. They don't play the "who has done what" game. Instead, their corporate mentality is to be loyal to the customers and never abandon them (even if some customers may do so). 
This has been done consistently for decades. Every release brings something to make the new product better and most of the time in an innovative way. Their customer support and after service is second to none. Looking at EOS-R from this perspective makes sense now. It has several new features that distinguishes it from 5D4 or 6D2 to be considered as a new offering and those who want the new features will buy them. Some of the features offered are incremental (e.g. 4K, c-log, -6EV AF, touch screen, etc.) and some are new (e.g. focus ring, sensor cover, EVF, bar interface, etc.). Those who buy EOS-R, will have assurance that what they get is going to work and maintained as advertised. It's cropped 4K may not be the best available out there or may have rolling shutter but it will certainly record 30min 4K without overheating and its AF will work. Simple.
Canon hasn't released half-baked products rushed to market for decades. In future, if Canon decides to put IBIS, full frame 4K video, or whatever else that the other manufacturers have, in their new models it won't be because of peer pressure, for sure. It will be because their technology has reached a level of maturity that can provide better shooting experience for the target customers in a consistent, persistent and reliable way.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 23, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> If you follow Canon's product development strategy and the Japanese corporate culture you understand that the "benchmark" that Canon uses to compare its newer products against is its own set of products. They don't play the "who has done what" game. Instead, their corporate mentality is to be loyal to the customers and never abandon them (even if some customers may do so).
> This has been done consistently for decades. Every release brings something to make the new product better and most of the time in an innovative way. Their customer support and after service is second to none. Looking at EOS-R from this perspective makes sense now. It has several new features that distinguishes it from 5D4 or 6D2 to be considered as a new offering and those who want the new features will buy them. Some of the features offered are incremental (e.g. 4K, c-log, -6EV AF, touch screen, etc.) and some are new (e.g. focus ring, sensor cover, EVF, bar interface, etc.). Those who buy EOS-R, will have assurance that what they get is going to work and maintained as advertised. It's cropped 4K may not be the best available out there or may have rolling shutter but it will certainly record 30min 4K without overheating and its AF will work. Simple.
> Canon hasn't released half-baked products rushed to market for decades. In future, if Canon decides to put IBIS, full frame 4K video, or whatever else that the other manufacturers have, in their new models it won't be because of peer pressure, for sure. It will be because their technology has reached a level of maturity that can provide better shooting experience for the target customers in a consistent, persistent and reliable way.



For starters, that approach of being behind it's peers regardless of their corporate culture or feature set maturity has led to this thread. The press was critical of these omissions. 

Then even though they are not driven by peer pressure, they added Eye-AF.

Then even though they don't release half baked products or rush them to market, the firmware was not complete and it can't eye af or shoot with a silent shutter in continuous mode with an update that still isn't available yet.

The Canon of yesterday, is seemingly not the Canon today. I'm not sure your assessment is totally valid here.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 23, 2018)

EOS R was rushed to market. It is half-baked. Otherwise it would not urgently need a firmware update immediately after launch to (hopefully) make some features functional and usable.

EOS R is lacking in several key dimensions, compared to competition, that's an established fact.

EOS R does have some advantages over competion as well, but most of them are minor items, of secondary importance with little or no impact on IQ and shooting experience.

And please dont mention Canon service. For non-CPS customers it is typically about as bad or non-existing as that of competitors. 99.9% of Canon customers are not attending Olympic games or World Championships etc. as accredited pros with their Canon imaging gear ...

eg in my country, Austria (EU country, 9 M inhabitants) Canon service for non-CPS customers is solely available from 1 (one) authorized *external service partner*, not from Canon themselves. From what i gather from my photo friends using different brand gear, turnaround times are more or less as long for Canon as for Sony or Nikon - never less than 14 days, often 4 weeks.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 23, 2018)

Tremotino said:


> Nowadays people are like: You can't take an eye-sharp portrait without Eye-AF, that's too difficult.
> Just because there exist Eye-AF, it's not a must have feature for great pictures or a great camera. Are the other photographers all idiots because they don't use it/want it?
> I was alwas proud of my pictures when I got the eye sharp. For me it's lot of fun to nail it. Every single time. Eye-AF is fine (a really cool feature, maybe one day when I will be old and my eyes are week, I will use for sure eye-af for focussing) but less challenging.



i see it exactly opposite. every time i shoot portraits and then detect that of the umpteen captures taken, the one i like best for facial expression, emotion, personality showing through, mood and feel of scene, fabulous light from just the right angle, etc. ... all as perfect as can be ... BUT AF or manual focus has not perfectly nailed the shot ... (leading) eye slightly out of focus ... rendering a wonderful and otherwise perfect shot pretty much worthless ... trash bin instead of keeper ... it absolutely INFURIATES me, every time it happens. if my lack of manual dexterity and hand-eye coordination and/or shortcomings of technology I HAVE PAID for fails me and does NOT deliver the goods.

i am happy and have fun with my photography when I am (en)able(d) to create images that turn out exactly the way i want them. i take neither pride not have fun in my manual dexterity or skill as operator of complex equipment with lots of knobs, wheels, dials, buttons, settings and custom functions all of which i need to set in a specific way. no pleasure, only a plight and an obstacle in my creative process. i don't want having to fight my gear, i want my tools to SERVE me.

getting leading eye in a face in front of my camera into sharp focus is something that finally cameras can take care of.

Unfortunately EOS R is not able to keep that eye in focus in Servo-AF when my subject and or myself/camera are moving. Rushed to market, half- baked. Firmware update needed. lol

getting eyes into sharp focus is part of my OBJECTIVES for portraits, but not a task i want to perform "myself" ... when a few sensors, a little CPU and some smart algorithms can do it better than i ever could.

Creating an image exactly the way i envision it and want to have it, is something, no AI will ever be able to achieve on its own. That and only that is what i see as my task, my pleasure, my pride ... if i manage to achieve it.

i have highest respect for earlier generations of photographers who (occasionally) managed to create stunning images DESPITE the crude technology, FIGHTING with ugly chemistry, wet plates, mechanical contraptions and shenanugans of all sorts, darkrooms, etc.

They were not idiots, they did not have anything better at their disposal. You bet they would have been happy to use today's imaging equipment that frees us from (most) of the tedious, mundane, no-fun aspects of capturing photons, painting with light and create amazing images - provided we have enough imagination and creativity. 

with today's imaging gear technology we are in a position almost like an architect who could create buildings "as imagined" without needing to deal with bricks, mortar, construction workers and builders.i like that.


----------



## canonmike (Dec 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. Very true.
> 
> As a clear and glaring example for [intentional or unintential] anti-Canon bias at dpr all DPR reviews of Canon EOS M cameras are listing "limited native lens lineup" as a "CON" in the prominent Pro/con box on the conclusion üpage of their reviews. They also seem to factor it into their %-rating as a negative ... for the camera BODY! Full access to the entire universe of Canon EF/EF-S lenses via Canon OEM adapter is totally disregarded.
> 
> ...


We should all know by now, that in the court of DPR, Canon will always get a guilty verdict, in their humble opinion, of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> The Canon of yesterday, is seemingly not the Canon today.


True. The Canon of yesterday was the ILC market leader with just over 40% market share. The Canon of today is the ILC market leader with just under 50% market share. 

For some, it's important to keep in mind the overall background and context, which provide insight into the broader effects (or lack thereof, in this case) of critical reviews on sites like DPR. Others prefer to ignore reality.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Others prefer to ignore reality.



"reality" is a fictional concept.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> "reality" is a fictional concept.



You have demonstrated that belief in this forum time and time again. Nice to finally see you admit it...


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 23, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> For starters, that approach of being behind it's peers regardless of their corporate culture or feature set maturity has led to this thread. The press was critical of these omissions.
> 
> Then even though they are not driven by peer pressure, they added Eye-AF.
> 
> ...


Again, your mistake is that you are interpreting Canon's product development behavior by your own standards. And again, referring to Japanese corporate culture, the promise to release some features is not because you or DPR or some celebrities that you mentioned have asked for. It is because they understand it will improve "shooting experience for the target customers in a consistent, persistent and reliable way".
The way that Japanese corporate culture differs mostly from what you expect, and I believe it is the cause of your confusion, is that in Western mindset it is acceptable to say “I can do it” even thought you know you can do it with much lesser than 100% probabilities at that time and then try to get to 100% as much as you can. If not, still ok, you will do it again in the next release. But in Japanese corporate culture if they feel that it’s possible to achieve most likely 100%, they don’t agree to it yet. They make sure it is exactly 100% and then commit to and assume responsibility for delivering it. Japanese companies that play with Western mindset rules seem to be more predictable and popular in the West, anyway.
If the firmware you refer to was incomplete, they wouldn't have released the product at all. I have EOS-R and as it is, it offers advanced and pleasant shooting experience for my photography genre. The promised feature will further extend that experience when they arrive.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 23, 2018)

4fun said:


> "reality" is a fictional concept.



This post explains pretty much eveything you've ever posted, under all your pseudonyms.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2018)

He is only on the same wavelength as several international leaders but what they say is just more consequential.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 24, 2018)

4fun said:


> ....EOS R is lacking in several key dimensions, compared to competition, that's an established fact.
> 
> EOS R does have some advantages over competion as well, but most of them are minor items, of secondary importance with little or no impact on IQ and shooting experience.



I agree with the former, the latter is just an opinion - and I don't agree with it. I think that is the point some of us are trying to make.

I don't know the answer, but my guess is that far more photographers will be find the fully articulating screen more important than IBIS - and certainly will have more impact in their shooting experience. My guess is that the majority of R owners will have lenses with IS. Plus, the ability to take photos with very high ISOs also diminishes the need for IBIS. When I rented the R, I took shots indoors and did not need IBIS at all (nor on outdoor shots, including sunsets).

Not having two card slots may impact the pros, but the vast majority of R users are not - plus the are probably coming from either the ^D level or going FF from Rebels. In other words, they will be used to one card slot and it won't affect their shooting experience. The dust curtain, on the other hand, will improve the shooting experience of every photographer who has ever had dust on the sensor.

Lots of folks on the forums complain about the crop in video. But again, among all camera users, how many shoot wide angle video? My guess is very few. How many, on the other hand, shoot their kids at soccer games, or other sports, or kid's plays, dance recitals, etc. All situations where you want more reach and wide angle is totally unwanted. So, my guess this is a minor item to most everyone shooting video, but a major complaint from reviewers.

Color has little impact on IQ? Ergonomics doesn't affect shooting experience? I think, quite frankly, that you have it backwards..


----------



## 4fun (Dec 24, 2018)

To almost all users, things like shutter curtain down when lens off or fully articulated LCD are absolutely fine and "really right". 1 card slot is an omission, but also only of secondary importance.

Most users would happily trade these "auxilliary features" for some "primary priorities":
* sensor with as much DR as competing Sony and Nikon models
* AF working "no strings attached" in any mode - e.g. full 9 fps also in "Servo-AF with focus priority"
* Eye-Tracking AF working no strings attached in any mode, including Servo-AF
* sufficient CPU power for fully functional features of the camera , in any mode of operation
* sales price not higher than better specced cameras by competitors
[ i don't list 4k video here, because there is no need for video recording in a stills camera, but I am sure, some folks would proper 4k video over a closed shutter curtain]

Canon was not willing or not able to deliver on these. That's what the criticism of EOS R is all about. And it does hint at a rushed, half-baked product launch, when some of the features are simply software items that may eventually be delivered via "FW update".


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 24, 2018)

I wouldn't trade canons winning features for sonys winning features. No way in hell. One stop of DR will not help get photos as much as a camera that is comfortable to hold for hours at a time. Eye af would not help me more than canons robustness. Uncompromised 4k video won't help me more than an insanely huge colection of 
Native and incredible quality lenses. I think you have a very misguided idea of what people consider more important. No one will complain when canon improves upon some things but for many people sony especially but even Nikon are just not on a par with canon despite what the spec warriors think.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 24, 2018)

4fun said:


> Most users would:


For the umpteenth time, you don't speak for most users. You speak for one user. Canon cares about delivering products with features desired by most users. They don't give a crap what 4fun/mirage//fullstop/AvTvM wants. 

In the only market for which we have data (the domestic market for Canon, Nikon and Sony), the EOS R is the best-selling FF MILC. So, either people are choosing to buy a camera that doesn't have the features they want over competitor models that offer those features...or you really don't have a clue what most buyers actually want.

Incidentally, your very first 'primary priority' makes your disconnection from reality manifestly clear. Canon hasn't routinely had 'sensors with as much DR as competing Sony and Nikon models' since about 2009, and they remain the ILC market leader with even greater dominance now than then.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 24, 2018)

4fun said:


> To almost all users, things like shutter curtain down when lens off or fully articulated LCD are absolutely fine and "really right". 1 card slot is an omission, but also only of secondary importance.
> 
> Most users would happily trade these "auxilliary features" for some "primary priorities":
> * sensor with as much DR as competing Sony and Nikon models
> ...


Please spare us your comments about "primary priorities" which may be valid for you and some self-declared internet experts, but certainly not for me.
If you were right, Canon would have gone bankrupt several years ago, but unfortunately, your statistics about customer's wishes and needs are just fakes.I'd suggest that you buy a full - baked Sony wondercamera and be happy.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 24, 2018)

Personally, Canon has yet to make a camera with all the features that I want. I keep buying them because they have the important (to me) features that I want at a price I can afford. If it had everything I want, I couldn’t afford it.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, Canon has yet to make a camera with all the features that I want. I keep buying them because they have the important (to me) features that I want at a price I can afford. If it had everything I want, I couldn’t afford it.


This is a practical way to look at it. Canon too are not giving me all I want but I can't complain about what I have already. The 5DIV is a great all round camera (if you can't get good photos with it you should take up another hobby). The 5DSR I find so-so in general but it shines at landscape on a tripod and in the studio. The 7DII I couldn't claim to be a great camera but I find its autofocus pretty good and 10 FPS is a great thing to have.
If Canon gave me all I want - I couldn't afford it and if I could I wouldn't need to buy again. 
I think Canon go all out on the lens and that keeps the bulk of us happy to stay with the system. Some of us grumble but I still think its the best all round system. Yes some features on Sony or some options on Nikon feel attractive at times but not enough to discard the system.
I am still getting great photographs from my Canons.
I'm not ready for the EOS-R yet or its not ready for me. I'll be more tempted when they bring out a more professional version with two slots and fast FPS.
I guess that will be in the next year or two.
The gear I have will do a great job in the mean time.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 24, 2018)

4fun said:


> To almost all users, things like shutter curtain down when lens off or fully articulated LCD are absolutely fine and "really right". 1 card slot is an omission, but also only of secondary importance.
> 
> Most users would happily trade these "auxilliary features" for some "primary priorities":
> * sensor with as much DR as competing Sony and Nikon models
> ...




One stop DR difference is inconsequential. Tell me when that extra stop would avoid the need to bracket.
The next three (AF, eye AF and processors) are likely due to Canon's not having available a sensor with the required data throughput. That is nothing to do with camera design choice but is a constraint placed on their design by their research capability. Now you could argue that Canon should buy in sensors/processors that do give them those options in camera design but Canon has repeatedly decided not to - one thing you can be assured is that if Canon considered those functions to be absolutely essential to its success they would buy in the sensors and processors. 
It is becoming clear that Sony has started to restrict availability of certain sensor/processor designs to non-Sony entities so even if Canon did buy them in, would Canon be able to catch up in the way you imagine? But Canon see big problems in becoming beholden to a competitor on supply of crucial components.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 24, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> ..........The 5DIV is a great all round camera (if you can't get good photos with it you should take up another hobby).........


"Good" is not the point - I want to take better photos and under a wider range of conditions than I can with my 5DIV, and I am not going to take up another hobby.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> One stop DR difference is inconsequential. Tell me when that extra stop would avoid the need to bracket.
> The next three (AF, eye AF and processors) are likely due to Canon's not having available a sensor with the required data throughput. That is nothing to do with camera design choice but is a constraint placed on their design by their research capability. Now you could argue that Canon should buy in sensors/processors that do give them those options in camera design but Canon has repeatedly decided not to - one thing you can be assured is that if Canon considered those functions to be absolutely essential to its success they would buy in the sensors and processors.
> It is becoming clear that Sony has started to restrict availability of certain sensor/processor designs to non-Sony entities so even if Canon did buy them in, would Canon be able to catch up in the way you imagine? But Canon see big problems in becoming beholden to a competitor on supply of crucial components.


Supposedly, the sensor division of Sony is meant to be independent and to maximise its divisional profits. Though, I think they don't sell their top stacked 1" sensor to anyone but Sony.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> The next three (AF, eye AF and processors) are likely due to Canon's not having available a sensor with the required data throughput. That is nothing to do with camera design choice but is a constraint placed on their design by their research capability.



yes. Core of the problem at "innovative Canon": R&D resources and money squandered for all sorts of exotic to weirdo patents (e.g. the latest "soft focus" stuff  ] but not enough on essential sensor capabilities. 

Canon's greatest asset are their infinitely loyal, infinitely patient, infinitely defensive fanboy customers.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. Core of the problem at "innovative Canon": R&D resources and money squandered for all sorts of exotic to weirdo patents (e.g. the latest "soft focus" stuff  ] but not enough on essential sensor capabilities.
> 
> Canon's greatest asset are their infinitely loyal, infinitely patient, infinitely defensive fanboy customers.



It's Christmas day. Don't you have even a scintilla of good cheer and joy for humankind? Or are you an unreconstructed Scrooge wallowing in misery while everyone else is having good fun?


----------



## 4fun (Dec 25, 2018)

Christmas Day is a fictional concept. 
No mercy for Canon.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 25, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Supposedly, the sensor division of Sony is meant to be independent and to maximise its divisional profits. Though, I think they don't sell their top stacked 1" sensor to anyone but Sony.


The semiconductor business and the imaging business are each wholly incorporated entities. They both tree up to Sony group. 

It’s possible the Imaging Solutions funded development of certain sensors at Semiconductor Solutions, and those could remain proprietary.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> yes. Core of the problem at "innovative Canon": R&D resources and money squandered for all sorts of exotic to weirdo patents (e.g. the latest "soft focus" stuff  ] but not enough on essential sensor capabilities.
> 
> Canon's greatest asset are their infinitely loyal, infinitely patient, infinitely defensive fanboy customers.


WOW! You speak as though all a company needs to do is say 'We need a better sensor'and all of a sudden is disappears. It seems you know zip about R&D.
If Sony are so 'innovative' how come they can't even put a fully articulating LCD in their cameras? Or a usable touch screen LCD?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 25, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Supposedly, the sensor division of Sony is meant to be independent and to maximise its divisional profits. Though, I think they don't sell their top stacked 1" sensor to anyone but Sony.



I agree. But there was a Sony rumors report a couple of months ago that some corporate edict restricts what the sensor division can sell outside the company/group - but to be honest I can't recall if that was you can't ever' or ' you can but you have to let Sony imaging have first crack'


----------



## 4fun (Dec 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> WOW! You speak as though all a company needs to do is say 'We need a better sensor'and all of a sudden is disappears. It seems you know zip about R&D.



all I know is that Canon first managed to be 1 big step ahead of all competitors with their CMOS (vs CCD) sensors and then totally fell back about 10 years ago and in all of those years never managed to get on par again ... not to mention "ahead" on sensors. DP-AF way over-hyped, theoretically "brilliant", in practice "decent", but not revolutionary either. 

And yes, of course "it does not matter, because they sell most". In a massively shrinking market. LOL. 

btw: why stupid Sony does not implement really right, fully articulated and totally responsive touchscreens also beats me. If I were them, I would.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> And yes, of course "it does not matter, because they sell most". In a massively shrinking market. LOL.


So it's better to be Sony or Nikon and sell _fewer_ cameras in a shrinking market? The point is, fewer people are buying cameras, but proportionally more are are buying Canon ILCs...which means that your criticisms are fundamentally irrelevant as far as those who really matter are concerned, namely the camera-buying market.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> btw: why stupid Sony does not implement really right, fully articulated and totally responsive touchscreens also beats me. If I were them, I would.



Canon don't have the technology for sensors to maximise in that area, Sony do have touch screen technology but don't use it (and flip screen technology and command ring technology). 
'Innovative' obviously comes in different forms.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Canon don't have the technology for sensors to maximise in that area



What does that mean?



Mikehit said:


> Sony do have ... command ring technology [but don’t use it].



I’m not sure Sony has “command rings” per se, though that’s exactly what the focus and aperture rings do on fly by wire lenses. Also many Sony lenses have programmable buttons, and I don’t think there’s much room to argue that something you spin is innovative but something you press isn’t.

If the market demands more functions driven by the lens, I don’t doubt they’ll be able to offer it.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> Christmas Day is a fictional concept.
> No mercy for Canon.


Yet you seem to be a loyal canon customer.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 25, 2018)

I find it quite amusing to see so many folks trying to have a logical debate with an obtuse opponent whose motto seems to be "facts and statistics are a fictional concept". Is this some kind of New Year's resolution?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 25, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> What does that mean?


Most of Sony's advantages are driven by the on-chip processing, things such as shooting rate while using AF, full frame 4K video and (on the A9) no-blackout shooting on for action to name only three.
They are pretty equal on DR but Sony still has the edge in things that require data transfer.



3kramd5 said:


> I’m not sure Sony has “command rings” per se, though that’s exactly what the focus and aperture rings do on fly by wire lenses. Also many Sony lenses have programmable buttons, and I don’t think there’s much room to argue that something you spin is innovative but something you press isn’t.
> 
> If the market demands more functions driven by the lens, I don’t doubt they’ll be able to offer it.


That was sort of my point. People talked about Sony 'innovation' when what they really meant was that Sony did things other manufacturers already has but put them all into one body. What I would call less 'innovation' and more scattergun approach to maximise appeal to the widest market.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Most of Sony's advantages are driven by the on-chip processing, things such as shooting rate while using AF, full frame 4K video and (on the A9) no-blackout shooting on for action to name only three.
> They are pretty equal on DR but Sony still has the edge in things that require data transfer.



Yes their DRAM stacked sensors have significant throughput. That’s undeniable.


----------



## 4fun (Dec 26, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> If the market demands more functions driven by the lens, I don’t doubt they’ll be able to offer it.



Not sure whether yet one more ring on each lens is a "smart" innovation. Nikon approach with user re-assignable focus ring looks better to me. And best solution for me would be a multi-functional "control ring" on camera itself, around lens mount ... instead of on each lens.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 26, 2018)

4fun said:


> Not sure whether yet one more ring on each lens is a "smart" innovation. Nikon approach with user re-assignable focus ring looks better to me. And best solution for me would be a multi-functional "control ring" on camera itself, around lens mount ... instead of on each lens.


I don’t think it need be an additional ring. They could use a toggle to switch what the focus ring does, for example, or allow the user to assign it a different function when in non-manual or DMF mode.

Point being, I can’t paint Sony with a lack of innovation simply because they don’t have a “twist-it” to control camera functions in lens. The communications protocol exists, and is active with a different user interface than canon chose.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> "Good" is not the point - I want to take better photos and under a wider range of conditions than I can with my 5DIV, and I am not going to take up another hobby.


Like what exactly Alan. What change to a 5D IV would make your photographs better.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 26, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Like what exactly Alan. What change to a 5D IV would make your photographs better.


Removing the AA-filter or best of all have the option of switching it on or off and increase the mpx to 40 or 50. Improve the AF up to the new Nikon standard for the D850. I usually grab my 5DSR rather than my 5DIV because I get much better fine detail for bird plumage. The better IQ makes my photos better. The AA-filter and additional mpx would be a real gain, not a hype on specs. As mentioned in another thread, I have just come back from a long safari and have been comparing shots taken by me with a 5DIV + 400mm DO II + 2xTC and my wife with the 5DSR + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC, and the 5DSR shots are sharper.


----------



## martti (Dec 26, 2018)

I got the Sony A7III some weeks back but due to pre-holiday workload, I haven't been able to really get used to it.
I have earlier experience from an A6000 which wasn't all that positive despite the promises it held.

Now my first impressions: The product is mature. The feel of the camera is solid. You can get it set up exactly as you like which has its pluses and its minuses. The choices are overwhelming. I followed a tutorial from Wim Arys Photography which he has taken down since.

Coming from Canon 5D4, it takes a while to realize that I am looking at a screen, not the image through the lens.
The Tamron 28-75 is sharp and luminous but of course not the same overall quality (corner sharpness) as the 24-70 f/2.8.
The overall size of the combo is slightly smaller. Laws of physics set their limits. The buttons on Sony seem to be made with nimble Asian fingers in mind. There is a clear improvement in accessing the menus compared to the A6000. For the time being, I prefer Canon's user interface. This may change with time.
I could not get Samsung A8S to connect through wi-fi. With iPad and MacBook Air, I had no problems.

My first impression about usability is that I am on the steep part of the learning curve.
On the computer screen, the RAW pictures from the 5D4 and the A7III are indistinguishable except when it comes to getting details from shadows. This should not be news to anyone.

The Sigma adapter is still on its way so I do not know how my Canon lenses will behave.
In addition to the Tamron, I got a Zony 55mm f/1.8, the Rokinon 35mm f/2.8, and the 100mm f/2.8 macro.


Upgrade: The Sigma adapter arrived. The autofocus hits it right away (EF 16-35 F/4). This is totally another game compared to A6000 with Metabones that was like Bono of the U2: "Still cannot find what I'm looking for". I sold my 5D3 to a colleague of mine. The 5D4 is still there. 
Now I have a free weekend. Will be posting pictures.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 26, 2018)

brad-man said:


> I find it quite amusing to see so many folks trying to have a logical debate with an obtuse opponent whose motto seems to be "facts and statistics are a fictional concept". Is this some kind of New Year's resolution?


It's almost as if an end-of-year OCD curse has been placed upon several members here, even big-brained ones.

Canon has a New Year's Resolution: 75 MP, baby!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> It's almost as if an end-of-year OCD curse has been placed upon several members here, even big-brained ones.
> 
> Canon has a New Year's Resolution: 75 MP, baby!


Is that a selfie?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Is that a selfie?


No. I haven't been on here 25 times in a week scolding the same posters over and over with the same tired replies, making the forum tiresome and depressing.

How sad at any time of year, but especially the last week.

My advice: Try dry prosecco instead of champagne for the big toast when the ball drops.


----------



## wolfgang_guelcker (Dec 26, 2018)

A Dpreview Myth: "High ISO noise performance in Raw remains around one stop behind the Sony a7 III"

There are measured values from the meticulous Bill Claff, who even Dpreview uses from time to time as an expert.

And according to Bill Claff (PhotonsToPhotos.net) the "Low Light EV" of the EOS R is 0.13 EV lower than that of the Nikon Z 6 and 0.45 EV lower than that of the Sony a7 III.

PhotonsToPhotos

In the table at the bottom of the page, Bill Claff answers the question: at which ISO do we still have an acceptable Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) of 6.5 EV? This is then the "Low Light ISO", which he converted into "Low Light EV" in EV. His numbers are


```
Low Light   Low Light
               Max PDR      ISO           EV
Canon EOS R     10.63      4675        10.55
Nikon Z 6       11.06      5132        10.68
Sony ILCE-7M3   11.60      6420        11.00
```

(Max PDR here are the values for ISO 100)

So: The EOS R's Low Light ISO is almost identical to that of the Nikon Z 6 and only half an EV worse than that of the Sony a7 III. And the curves show that at higher ISO values the dynamic range differences become even smaller.

Wolfgang


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Removing the AA-filter or best of all have the option of switching it on or off and increase the mpx to 40 or 50. Improve the AF up to the new Nikon standard for the D850. I usually grab my 5DSR rather than my 5DIV because I get much better fine detail for bird plumage. The better IQ makes my photos better. The AA-filter and additional mpx would be a real gain, not a hype on specs. As mentioned in another thread, I have just come back from a long safari and have been comparing shots taken by me with a 5DIV + 400mm DO II + 2xTC and my wife with the 5DSR + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC, and the 5DSR shots are sharper.



Interesting. I find the 5DIV much better for detail than the 5DSR.
I'm too not long back from Safari and the 5DIV performed much better. Much better resolved detail and sharpness.
I have a fairly early version of the 5DSR so maybe its not the best. It's fine at low ISO but at higher ISO's I don't like it at all.
I find the 5DIV very good at higher ISO's.
The 5DIV combined with the 600 F4 II is a brilliant combination on Safari.
I ended up using the 5DSR and 100-400 for the more close up shots. Light is generally good so low ISO's mainly on the 5DSR.
Early morning or towards sunset the 5DSR wasn't great as the ISO crept up.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 26, 2018)

Maybe you "find the 5DIV much better for detail than the 5DSR." That is a very broad statement, however, and goes against my experience. Maybe you can find that under some conditions. Maybe it is the RAW converter you use. I find DxO PL really good for the 5DSR for suppressing noise and the lens sharpness works very well. There are people who measure the resolution of cameras and they find that that the 5DSR is much better for detail. Optyczne.pl, the parent site of lenstip.com, has relevant results:
https://www.optyczne.pl/312.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds__R_Rozdzielczość.html
https://www.optyczne.pl/351.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_IV_Rozdzielczość.html
(use Chrome to translate automatically). Here are the relevant charts, with the 5DIV above and the 5DSR below.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> My advice: Try dry prosecco instead of champagne for the big toast when the ball drops.



That's crazy talk.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> No. I haven't been on here 25 times in a week scolding the same posters over and over with the same tired replies, making the forum tiresome and depressing.
> 
> How sad at any time of year, but especially the last week.
> 
> My advice: Try dry prosecco instead of champagne for the big toast when the ball drops.


Yeah, repetitive posting of minor variations of the same tired Chicken Littie 'the sky us falling on my lens collection' topic seems to be more of a summertime activity for you. Sad, indeed. 

My advice: try sparkling cider for the toast. As for us, a bottle of Bollinger La Grande Année 2007 is already chilled.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, repetitive posting of minor variations of the same tired Chicken Littie 'the sky us falling on my lens collection' topic seems to be more of a summertime activity for you. Sad, indeed.
> 
> My advice: try sparkling cider for the toast. As for us, a bottle of Bollinger La Grande Année 2007 is already chilled.


I already addressed those concerns by _listening to the opinions of members here_. I thanked them for helping me understand and accept the transition from EF to mirrorless. As you say, that was back in the summer, yet you cling to it?

I think we are looking at a dozen posts I made as opposed to 300 or 400 of yours pounding the same theme over and over, "Canon is the leader. That is the fact. Your opinions don't count and aren't interesting." To the point of making thread after thread tiresome.

Oh, for the days when you gave such enlightened, concise technical support in a friendly way.

Enjoy your grape juice!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I already addressed those concerns by _listening to the opinions of members here_. I thanked them for helping me understand and accept the transition from EF to mirrorless. As you say, that was back in the summer, yet you cling to it?
> 
> I think we are looking at a dozen posts I made as opposed to 300 or 400 of yours pounding the same theme over and over, "Canon is the leader. That is the fact. Your opinions don't count and aren't interesting." To the point of making thread after thread tiresome.
> 
> ...


Yes, and it only took starting 7-8 new threads (or was it as few as 6?) for you to reach that state of enlightened nirvana and gratitude. That suggests a deeply rooted insecurity, or possibly some other neurosis. Or that the opinions you claim were helpful were actually not so much. 

Canon *is* the ILC market leader, and that *is* a fact. It is also a logical and relevant response to claims that Canon must do X or Y or add feature Z to be competitive, and statements of similar ilk. It's interesting that repeated claims and opinions based on misinformation or outright falsehoods don't seem to bother you, but you find a logical, factual response to those claims tiresome. On the other hand, I'm glad that you seem to accept reality for what it is...otherwise, you'd be crossing from neurosis into psychosis, which would be quite unfortunate. 

I do certainly continue to happily offer technical help when it's requested. But in fact, those requests have become few and far between. Perhaps the new account signup process is onerous enough to be a barrier to people with questions signing up to ask them (and I recall for a while that new members could not immediately start a topic, which was a further barrier; not sure if that's still the case). Or perhaps google and youtube are doing better at providing quick solutions. 

Regardless, I do plan to enjoy my grape juice (in fact, I'm enjoying some of the non-bubbly variety now) – as long as the grapes are of good quality and the juice is appropriately fermented and aged, it's a wonderful beverage.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, and it only took starting 7-8 new threads (or was it as few as 6?) for you to reach that state of enlightened nirvana and gratitude. That suggests a deeply rooted insecurity, or possibly some other neurosis. Or that the opinions you claim were helpful were actually not so much.
> 
> Canon *is* the ILC market leader, and that *is* a fact. It is also a logical and relevant response to claims that Canon must do X or Y or add feature Z to be competitive, and statements of similar ilk. It's interesting that repeated claims and opinions based on misinformation or outright falsehoods don't seem to bother you, but you find a logical, factual response to those claims tiresome. On the other hand, I'm glad that you seem to accept reality for what it is...otherwise, you'd be crossing from neurosis into psychosis, which would be quite unfortunate.
> 
> ...



What I find tiresome is having threads dominated by cynical, repetitive attempts to stifle discussion, whether it is the future of legacy EF, wished-for features, or gripes. No brainstorming allowed. In what appears to be a crusade of 50-60 similar posts or more a month, you just keep repeating that Canon is the ILC market leader. Apparently any post that doesn't acknowledge this must be dealt with. Over and over and over.

You see a post that deviates from your standards, STOMP. Squash it! Eliminate! 

Reminds me of Nomad in the original series of _Star Trek_ (Episode: "The Changeling.") "Eradicate biological infestations! Illogical! Non sequitir! Error! Error! Errrooorrrr!"

No wonder fewer people come here for help, according to you. Why would they? They are afraid if they step out of line, stick their necks out with an opinion, here comes the Canon crusaders to belittle them or tell them to buy another brand.

Thanks for your armchair diagnosis of my mental issues. Now, physician, heal thyself.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> What I find tiresome is having threads dominated by cynical, repetitive attempts to stifle discussion, whether it is the future of legacy EF, wished-for features, or gripes. No brainstorming allowed. In what appears to be a crusade of 50-60 similar posts or more a month, you just keep repeating that Canon is the ILC market leader. Apparently any post that doesn't acknowledge this must be dealt with. Over and over and over.
> 
> You see a post that deviates from your standards, STOMP. Squash it! Eliminate!
> 
> ...




Some of us are quite glad that Neuro is around to try and combat the trolls and the ignorant and the members who constantly ignore any sort of factual information in order to endlessly promote their particular agenda. If you consider endless bitching and moaning to be "brainstorming," well, that is unfortunate. If people don't stand up to the trolls and try and spread some actual, factual information, well, then the forum disintegrates into nothing but endless bullsh!t and people just making up stuff in support of their arguments. I would say in the number of years that I have been on the forum, it has already reached that point. Again, if that's the forum you like, I guess that is your prerogative. The admins clearly like it this way, as the clicks get generated every time sometime makes some absurd claim or outright lie.

"But this is a rumor forum!" some will argue. Yes, but the rumors are still intended to predict the truth of what might happen. So, honesty and integrity should still be expected. Or has the world gotten to the point where those things just don't matter anymore?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> What I find tiresome is having threads dominated by cynical, repetitive attempts to stifle discussion, whether it is the future of legacy EF, wished-for features, or gripes. No brainstorming allowed. In what appears to be a crusade of 50-60 similar posts or more a month, you just keep repeating that Canon is the ILC market leader. Apparently any post that doesn't acknowledge this must be dealt with. Over and over and over.
> 
> You see a post that deviates from your standards, STOMP. Squash it! Eliminate!
> 
> ...


Lol. Stifle discussion? Not that that has ever been even remotely my intent, but if it was, obviously I've utterly failed.

Brainstorming and discussion are good. Opinions and claims based on lies are not good. I'm sorry you feel that a factual response to those claims is tiresome and overbearing, but really, that's your issue to deal with...or not. You _could_ have chosen to ignore it and move on, but instead you _did _choose to insult me. Sad.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 27, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Some of us are quite glad that Neuro is around to try and combat the trolls and the ignorant and the members who constantly ignore any sort of factual information in order to endlessly promote their particular agenda. If you consider endless bitching and moaning to be "brainstorming," well, that is unfortunate. If people don't stand up to the trolls and try and spread some actual, factual information, well, then the forum disintegrates into nothing but endless bullsh!t and people just making up stuff in support of their arguments. I would say in the number of years that I have been on the forum, it has already reached that point. Again, if that's the forum you like, I guess that is your prerogative. The admins clearly like it this way, as the clicks get generated every time sometime makes some absurd claim or outright lie.
> 
> "But this is a rumor forum!" some will argue. Yes, but the rumors are still intended to predict the truth of what might happen. So, honesty and integrity should still be expected. Or has the world gotten to the point where those things just don't matter anymore?


So is DPR part of a disinformation campaign against Canon? 

Is anybody allowed to question Canon's products without being accused of ignorance and trolling? Lately it doesn't seem so here. The "cop on the beat" overreacts, the peaceful citizens shy away, and then we are surprised when few remain but hooligans?

Keeping it real needs to be balanced with keeping it open to legitimate debate.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> So is DPR part of a disinformation campaign against Canon?
> 
> Is anybody allowed to question Canon's products without being accused of ignorance and trolling? Lately it doesn't seem so here. The "cop on the beat" overreacts, the peaceful citizens shy away, and then we are surprised when few remain but hooligans?
> 
> Keeping it real needs to be balanced with keeping it open to legitimate debate.



I go away for a few days and I come back and it looks like the scolding has continued!

I enjoy reading DPR and I don't feel they are waging a disinformation campaign against Canon. Recently, they've highlighted certain shortcomings of Canon products and they seem to be increasingly critical of their products and decisions based on the benchmarks they use. They also command a large readership or market share so to speak. So when someone comes in and writes off DPR as a legitimate site, they can have their opinions, but don't expect many to be convinced.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> I go away for a few days and I come back and it looks like the scolding has continued!
> 
> I enjoy reading DPR and I don't feel they are waging a disinformation campaign against Canon. Recently, they've highlighted certain shortcomings of Canon products and they seem to be increasingly critical of their products and decisions based on the benchmarks they use. They also command a large readership or market share so to speak. So when someone comes in and writes off DPR as a legitimate site, they can have their opinions, but don't expect many to be convinced.


DPR is the home of the trolls. The Comments at the end of articles have a very high proportion by particularly nasty individuals attacking and defending all brands. They make our one or two awkward individuals look benign.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 27, 2018)

AlanF said:


> DPR is the home of the trolls. The Comments at the end of articles have a very high proportion by particularly nasty individuals attacking and defending all brands. They make our one or two awkward individuals look benign.


I don't remember having read the comments after reviews much on DPR. I either read the reviews themselves, or occasionally land on the comments section after a Google search for a technical point. The tech advice is hit or miss there, but that's true on any forum as wide open as DPR, I think.

I've been sticking with CR for so long that I forgot why. It has been more civil here, and informative. I know that is in part because members act that way, and also because moderators enforce standards.

Neuro is a big part of CR. It is no fun clashing horns with him, and it does little to advance any thread. Reminding people to be honest and use facts when discussing technical points and sales statistics can help make the forum more informative, surely, but when opinions about features, decisions, or future moves are effectively prohibited by self-appointed forum police (unless the opinions are praising Canon, the largest seller of ILC cameras year after year), people who might contribute insights worth discussing stay away. And then we get a higher concentration of posters who do enjoy the sport of annoying others.



neuroanatomist said:


> Brainstorming and discussion are good. Opinions and claims based on lies are not good. I'm sorry you feel that a factual response to those claims is tiresome and overbearing, but really, that's your issue to deal with...or not. You _could_ have chosen to ignore it and move on, but instead you _did _choose to insult me. Sad.



Neuro, you have a point. You have called me "chicken little," "hysterical," and "neurotic." I've said that your scolding posts remind me of Nomad from ST:OS. Clearly, I should tone it down. 

While dak723 makes the point that we do need members who step in to ask others to be truthful and logical, I'd suggest that constantly engaging with those who use over the top language and make wild claims in order to get a reaction causes more of the same teasing behavior--and an escalation of the taunting. Sometimes we can just take silly assertions with a grain of salt or ignore them.

For better or worse, DPR and others are widely read and viewed. Many reviewers have panned Canon features over the years, and the EOS R is getting hammered by some pretty fair criticisms for user-interface and the same 4k crop factor that was criticized in the 5D IV three years ago. So when somebody lands on CR after reading negative stuff, and then sees CR members blasting the messengers (think DPR and many others in disfavor here), they wonder what kind of parallel universe they've entered.

My point is not to defend DPR or Jared Polin or Tony Northrup or Arthur Morris or DxO or whoever else is criticizing Canon. I'm asking posters who reflexively declare that review sites are anti-Canon to think about how close-minded they sound, almost paranoid sometimes. As if there is this vast conspiracy of anti-Canon media out there threatening our honor.

Debating the criticisms is more interesting and effective than simply bashing the messengers.

And also think about how new members react to being told they are ignorant, they should buy another brand, they don't need a feature, they must be weak photographers if they need more DR, etc.

That's it!


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 27, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> I go away for a few days and I come back and it looks like the scolding has continued!
> 
> I enjoy reading DPR and I don't feel they are waging a disinformation campaign against Canon. Recently, they've highlighted certain shortcomings of Canon products and they seem to be increasingly critical of their products and decisions based on the benchmarks they use. They also command a large readership or market share so to speak. So when someone comes in and writes off DPR as a legitimate site, they can have their opinions, but don't expect many to be convinced.



I think the big problem with DPR reviews is that they discard as unimportant the things that canon win at or if they can't discard them completely the twist them in such a way as to come up with a biased answer. Saying sony wins out on lenses because of its native mirrorless selection completely ignores the fact that canons ef lenses work 'as native' and even have more functionality in some ways than 'native lenses'. That automatically puts into question their conclusions . Overall the sony is probably the more 'complete' body but certainly not by much


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2018)

Silly comments that misinform have to be contested and corrected. There is a wide diversity logging in, some of whom are beginners and wish to learn. There is no such thing as a dumb question but there are dumb answers and statements, and those who know the comments are dumb have an obligation to point them out to stop the spread of misinformation. People are entitled to opinions but not necessarily to spout them unchallenged if those opinions run contrary to evidence and the laws of science (or are illegal).


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> So is DPR part of a disinformation campaign against Canon?
> 
> Is anybody allowed to question Canon's products without being accused of ignorance and trolling? Lately it doesn't seem so here. The "cop on the beat" overreacts, the peaceful citizens shy away, and then we are surprised when few remain but hooligans?
> 
> Keeping it real needs to be balanced with keeping it open to legitimate debate.



I think your intentions are good, but it baffles me this is the take you have on the nature of discussion on the CR forums. I've been here a while, and observe a usual pattern: one or two notable contrarians post hyperbolic criticism of Canon, with a lot of newly-created accounts agreeing with them (their motives varying from stirring the pot, to being peeved at not getting what they want, and in some cases blatant sockpuppets of the aforementioned), then a handful of stalwarts here counter that by pointing out a few truths. You consider that the squashing of discussion? It hasn't stopped the silliness of AvTvM and his aliases, for instance. Yes Neuro is repetitive - because the vast majority of what he is rebutting is repetitive. "Canon MUST do X" where X is whatever the poster wants - that is satisfactorily countered by "no they don't, they're doing fine without offering this feature". You may not like it but that doesn't falsify it. Some of this stuff gets unnecessarily personal on both sides - but calling a troll a troll is not an insult, nor is pointing out ignorance.

As I say, I don't think you are one of those, you mean well, but your take on this is pretty distorted. I hardly ever see people being told their wants are wrong - I see them being told the lack of their wants is manifestly immaterial to Canon's current strategy (and indeed to their financial success).

As for DPR, their biases are well understood, whatever the motivations may be. I've stated here before I don't think they are necessarily anti-Canon, they just have certain editorial agendas that set them against Canon's approach and offerings. A lot of this is merely differing opinions, so one ought not get too upset by it, either way.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 27, 2018)

scyrene said:


> As I say, I don't think you are one of those, you mean well, but your take on this is pretty distorted. I hardly ever see people being told their wants are wrong - I see them being told the lack of their wants is manifestly immaterial to Canon's current strategy (and indeed to their financial success).



Perhaps I've been filtering differently, but the past year I've read here much more of, "If you want that feature, go buy brand X." Or, "You mean you can't take good pictures with a 5D III or 5D IV?" And so forth. Maybe it's troll-fighting fatigue?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2018)

I find that threads with titles like “which one is better” are ******* to rancour. No way are we going to get agreement because we have different needs. What is indispensable for one person may be an annoyance to the next. I think that we should all dial it down a bit and avoid using inflammatory language or phrases. 

Most of us have a balanced view, including those accused of being fanboys and of being trolls. Yes, Canon is a conservative company and moves slow, but from that we get stability..... that is the trade off. Yes, they have come out wth some brilliant innovations, but they have also made some stupid moves.... you can’t have one without the other! Everything is balance and trade-offs.

Most of us shoot Canon because the overall mix of camera/lens/accessories does what we want at the price we can afford. We will never see the perfect camera from any manufacturer because it does not, and will not, ever exist.... That is why many of us have multiple cameras from multiple manufacturers. So, in the meantime, we shoot with what we have, wish for more, and create great images and have fun on the way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> So is DPR part of a disinformation campaign against Canon?
> 
> Is anybody allowed to question Canon's products without being accused of ignorance and trolling? Lately it doesn't seem so here. The "cop on the beat" overreacts, the peaceful citizens shy away, and then we are surprised when few remain but hooligans?
> 
> Keeping it real needs to be balanced with keeping it open to legitimate debate.


DPR has been biased against Canon. Their criticism of AF performance when they failed to follow manufacturer's recommendations is one example, the 5DSR comparison where the Canon images were shot at least 30 minutes later into twilight then bashed for noise is another. They may still be biased, but I generally don't read their reviews anymore.

Your position is becoming clear. You believe it's ok to question Canon (and I agree). You believe open debate is good (and I also agree). You believe that responding to criticism of Canon with facts and logic based on those facts is an overreaction intended to quash discussion. That makes your desire for balance seem disingenuous at best.

Do you believe that lies and deliberate misinformation are appropriate contributions to 'legitimate debate'? Or that facts and truth are an inappropriate response to such posts? I would hope not, but your attitude suggests otherwise.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> DPR has been biased against Canon. Their criticism of AF performance when they failed to follow manufacturer's recommendations is one example, the 5DSR comparison where the Canon images were shot at least 30 minutes later into twilight then bashed for noise is another. They may still be biased, but I generally don't read their reviews anymore.
> 
> Your position is becoming clear. You believe it's ok to question Canon (and I agree). You believe open debate is good (and I also agree). You believe that responding to criticism of Canon with facts and logic based on those facts is an overreaction intended to quash discussion. That makes your desire for balance seem disingenuous at best.
> 
> Do you believe that lies and deliberate misinformation are appropriate contributions to 'legitimate debate'? Or that facts and truth are an inappropriate response to such posts? I would hope not, but your attitude suggests otherwise.



We have found common ground.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Reminding people to be honest and use facts when discussing technical points and sales statistics can help make the forum more informative, surely, but when opinions about features, decisions, or future moves are *effectively prohibited* by self-appointed forum police (unless the opinions are praising Canon, the largest seller of ILC cameras year after year), people who might contribute insights worth discussing stay away.


Effectively prohibited? First off, only the mods can effectively prohibit someone from posting (and even that's not very effective, as the many incarnations of AvTvM, Mikael, etc.).

Opinions about features, decisions, or future moves are perfectly fine. Saying, for example, "I wish Canon offered feature X," can lead to a productive and interesting discussion. But saying, "Canon needs to offer feature Y to be competitive," is an assertion that is contradicted by established fact...and I'll continue to point that out, unapologetically.




YuengLinger said:


> My point is not to defend DPR or Jared Polin or Tony Northrup or Arthur Morris or DxO or whoever else is criticizing Canon. I'm asking posters who reflexively declare that review sites are anti-Canon to think about how close-minded they sound, almost paranoid sometimes. As if there is this vast conspiracy of anti-Canon media out there threatening our honor.


I have claimed that DPR is biased against Canon, and given examples to support that claim. I have also claimed Northrup is biased, not against Canon but rather toward whatever is new – and that makes sense because new models sell, and his income is click-driven (I've also claimed he lacks technical competence, again with supporting examples). I've not said anything about Polin at all. I've said Morris is also click revenue-motivated, which again is perfectly reasonable.

I have claimed DxO is biased, not against Canon per se, but rather that their Scores are biased in a way that negatively impacts Canon. They have an internal logic for their scores (e.g., base ISO is important, high ISO performance is not). They believe that dynamic range is a factor in _lens_ scores, which makes no sense but pulls down Canon lens scores. I have also bashed them for claiming to perform 'image science' but not revealing their scoring algorithms, which is directly contrary to established scientific practice.

If that sounds to you like a reflexive declaration that review sites are anti-Canon, perhaps it's you that is close-minded or almost paranoid.



YuengLinger said:


> Debating the criticisms is more interesting and effective than simply bashing the messengers.



I still fail to see how a factual, logical reply comprises 'bashing the messenger'.




YuengLinger said:


> Neuro, you have a point. You have called me "chicken little," "hysterical," and "neurotic." I've said that your scolding posts remind me of Nomad from ST:OS. Clearly, I should tone it down.


Perhaps instead, you should consider trying to _not_ be the one to cast the first stone. I'm not opposed to answering personal insults with the same, but if you look back you'll be hard-pressed to find threads where I instigated the insults.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2018)

My problem with DXO is about how insane it is to try to reduce a lens rating down to a single number, particulatly when it is done according to some "magic" algorithm. None of us knows exactly how they create that magic number, but it does involve three baffling components.

The first component is the number of megapixels that the camera it was tested on has. Does this mean that if I swap out a 5D2 for a 5Ds r that all of a sudden my lenses will magically become better? Of course not! 

Second, what happens when I move that lens from a FF camera to a crop camera? Does it suddenly become a terrible lens? of course not!

The third thing that *really* bugs me is that the aperture of the lens figures VERY prominently is the lens rating. This leads us to the unlikely situation where the "nifty fifty", Canon's lowest cost lens, has a higher score than the 600F4, Canon's most expensive lens. In a world where we have fixed lenses from 10 to 800mm, multiple zooms covering small parts of the range and others covering large parts of the range, fisheyes, macros, T/S, and who knows what else, how could anyone be so delusional as to think that ONE number could compare them all?

This is not just about Canon, it affects every manufacturer. If they had any sense, they would leave the magic rating number out.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> My problem with DXO is about how insane it is to try to reduce a lens rating down to a single number, particulatly when it is done according to some "magic" algorithm. None of us knows exactly how they create that magic number, but it does involve two baffling components.



It goes even deeper that that, too. Don’t forget the Curious Case of the 500 Teles, wherein the canon lens ties or bests the nikkor lens in all five “lens metric scores,” yet ties in the composite.

This level pegging was explained, as Dr. Brain notes above, by camera body dynamic range improving the composite score, despite dynamic range not being enumerated anywhere in the lens metrics. It was also noted that the same canon lens on the same canon body would have outscored the same nikkor lens on the same nikon body in lower light. Because DXO.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 27, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Probably not, but when did you use a body in isolation? I always needed to use a lens with one and if you look at the body and lens system for a keen photographer the R wipes the floor with the other two. Who else makes a 50 f1.2, or a workhorse mid zoom at f2? Nobody. As a photographer I am far more interested in lenses than if ia body has ‘eye’ focus or ‘face’ focus.



IMHO, its wrong to judge a system by expensive lenses only a tiny fraction of photographers would buy.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Second, what happens when I move that lens from a FF camera to a crop camera? Does it suddenly become a terrible lens? of course not!


It can in fact become a worse lens on crop! The smaller sensor has more lines pairs per mm and so you have to look at the higher level MTF values of the lens with the crop to get the equivalent for the FF. For example, the 30 lp/mm MTF for the crop is equivalent to the 20 lp/mm of the FF, and the 48 lp/mm MTF for the crop is the equivalent of the 30 lp/mm of the FF for the overall resolution of the sensor. So, a lens that has a very good value of the 10 lp/mm and OK 30 lp/mm but deteriorates rapidly with increasing lp/mm will be OK for FF but weak on crop. The high quality lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, 100-400mm II perform well on crop. My old 100-400mm Mk 1, a poor copy, was quite good on FF but rubbish on crop.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> IMHO, its wrong to judge a system by expensive lenses only a tiny fraction of photographers would buy.


Normally I would agree with you, but in this case they are talking about FF cameras, and just that alone excludes about 95 percent of the users.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2018)

AlanF said:


> It can in fact become a worse lens on crop! The smaller sensor has more lines pairs per mm and so you have to look at the higher level MTF values of the lens with the crop to get the equivalent for the FF. For example, the 30 lp/mm MTF for the crop is equivalent to the 20 lp/mm of the FF, and the 48 lp/mm MTF for the crop is the equivalent of the 30 lp/mm of the FF for the overall resolution of the sensor. So, a lens that has a very good value of the 10 lp/mm and OK 30 lp/mm but deteriorates rapidly with increasing lp/mm will be OK for FF but weak on crop. The high quality lenses like the 300mm f/2.8, 100-400mm II perform well on crop. My old 100-400mm Mk 1, a poor copy, was quite good on FF but rubbish on crop.


No, the quality of the lens does not change. The optics are the same.... in fact, on a crop body you are only using the sweet spot in the middle of the lens so the overall performance should be better.

What does change is that crop sensors are (usually) higher pixel density, and as such need a higher resolving lens to achieve the same apparent sharpness as a FF body, so yes, the image will appear fuzzier than a similar image on a FF camera taken with a lens of similar sharpness..

That said, DXO does not rate the lens in line-pairs, they rate it in megapixels of sharpness....

And here is where it gets real silly fast. Take the 7D2 and the 5DS R. Same lens on both cameras. The pixels on the camera are the same size, yet the poorly named "sharpness" metric plummets. In reality, this so called metric is not as much about lens performance as it is about the number of pixels on the sensor.

We end up with a metric that can not even be used to properly compare the same lens across two cameras in the same brand! How could it possibly be used to compare between two different brands? Or even worse, two different lenses on two different brands!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2018)

I am not arguing about the validity of the DxOmark scores, I am pointing out that crop and FF sensors have different MTF frequency requirements for their lenses. It is not the point whether or not DxO is rating the lens in lp/mm or mpx. The heart of the matter is that a lens can perform differently on a crop sensor versus a FF depending on the frequency dependence of its MTFs. A small sensor requires a high resolution lens, and is more demanding than a large sensor of the same mpx. As an aside, a high density sensor also requires a high resolution lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2018)

AlanF said:


> I am not arguing about the validity of the DxOmark scores, I am pointing out that crop and FF sensors have different MTF frequency requirements for their lenses. It is not the point whether or not DxO is rating the lens in lp/mm or mpx. The heart of the matter is that a lens can perform differently on a crop sensor versus a FF depending on the frequency dependence of its MTFs. A small sensor requires a high resolution lens, and is more demanding than a large sensor of the same mpx. As an aside, a high density sensor also requires a high resolution lens.


100% agreement! I think we are saying the same thing, only from a different direction.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2018)

I do agree that the DxO scores have so much real garbage in them. The overall score for a zoom lens, for example is based on its optimal focal length, which will be different for different brands of lenses, rather than on say the longest or shortest. I also reported some yeaers ago that they clearly haven't measured the scores on all the bodies in their comparison charts but have clearly done just a few and scaled them for other bodies.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Perhaps I've been filtering differently, but the past year I've read here much more of, "If you want that feature, go buy brand X." Or, "You mean you can't take good pictures with a 5D III or 5D IV?" And so forth. Maybe it's troll-fighting fatigue?



Maybe. Tbh I haven't been using the forums as much since they changed the format, I don't find it as easy to follow what's going on


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> IMHO, its wrong to judge a system by expensive lenses only a tiny fraction of photographers would buy.


To which I'd say if you ain't interested in the RF lenses then you shouldn't be looking at the R!


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> To which I'd say if you ain't interested in the RF lenses then you shouldn't be looking at the R!



And I'm not looking at it, at least until it has the lenses I want.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Normally I would agree with you, but in this case they are talking about FF cameras, and just that alone excludes about 95 percent of the users.



The reference group I was referring to was FF camera owners, like me. My bet is 95% of those wouldn't buy a 50mm f/1.2 or a 28-70mm f/2, at least not at those prices.


----------



## flip314 (Dec 28, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> The reference group I was referring to was FF camera owners, like me. My bet is 95% of those wouldn't buy a 50mm f/1.2 or a 28-70mm f/2, at least not at those prices.



I tend to agree.

The 28-70 f2 is mostly a status symbol, and I say that as someone who really wants one... I'm sure when the RF 24-70 f2.8 comes out it will be a much more practical lens (and is probably what I'll actually end up with), and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to own both. Even then, the 24-105 f4 is probably already good enough for what most users want (sales volume wise).

The 50 1.2 also sounds amazing, but even for people who venture outside of zoom lenses probably more lens than they need. I expect the eventual 50mm 1.4 or 1.8s will be much more popular.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> The reference group I was referring to was FF camera owners, like me. My bet is 95% of those wouldn't buy a 50mm f/1.2 or a 28-70mm f/2, at least not at those prices.



Personally, I am the same. When I eventually get some model of the R mount, portability will be high on my requirements, with my ideal lens being an R mount version of the 16-35 F4, and using my existing F4 lenses through an adapter. The 28-70 F2 may be a fine lens, but I want something lighter to carry around.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> And I'm not looking at it, at least until it has the lenses I want.


Which proves my point, when/if you do buy one you'll use the camera with the lenses so however you want to cut it the body can't be tested in isolation, that is, it is disingenuous to 'test' one against the other without the lenses being an important part of the conclusion. In my world the reason for the body is to take lenses to create pictures, I can take more compelling and unique images with the Canon than the Sony or Nikon, but that counts for nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care what people do or don't do, I just think this reviewing process has completely moved away from the raison d'etre of the tool in hand and become a sales shark feeding frenzy where everybody is vying for affiliate links.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Which proves my point, when/if you do buy one you'll use the camera with the lenses so however you want to cut it the body can't be tested in isolation, that is, it is disingenuous to 'test' one against the other without the lenses being an important part of the conclusion. In my world the reason for the body is to take lenses to create pictures, I can take more compelling and unique images with the Canon than the Sony or Nikon, but that counts for nothing.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't care what people do or don't do, I just think this reviewing process has completely moved away from the raison d'etre of the tool in hand and become a sales shark feeding frenzy where everybody is vying for affiliate links.


Nobody you feel is go-to, reliable, objective anymore? Maybe I'm misreading you here...


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Which proves my point, when/if you do buy one you'll use the camera with the lenses so however you want to cut it the body can't be tested in isolation, that is, it is disingenuous to 'test' one against the other without the lenses being an important part of the conclusion. In my world the reason for the body is to take lenses to create pictures, I can take more compelling and unique images with the Canon than the Sony or Nikon, but that counts for nothing.



Yes, with the lenses. No, not with the RF 50mm f/1.2 or RF 28-70mm f/2, unless I happen to win the lottery.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 28, 2018)

flip314 said:


> I tend to agree.
> 
> The 28-70 f2 is mostly a status symbol, and I say that as someone who really wants one... I'm sure when the RF 24-70 f2.8 comes out it will be a much more practical lens (and is probably what I'll actually end up with), and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to own both. Even then, the 24-105 f4 is probably already good enough for what most users want (sales volume wise).
> 
> The 50 1.2 also sounds amazing, but even for people who venture outside of zoom lenses probably more lens than they need. I expect the eventual 50mm 1.4 or 1.8s will be much more popular.



28-70 is a bread and butter lens for event shooters and having a whole one full stop faster lens attached to you camera frequently means keeping ISO of your shots in 3200 territory instead of 6400. that is a massive difference in my books. that along sparked my interest in the promising albeit still largely incomplete R system.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 28, 2018)

DPR has decided that spec sheets, feature parity and performance are the metrics that mainly define which camera reviews well. Members that don't agree with DPR believe they should have considered other comparison metrics "they" feel are important to them like Canon's EF back catalog, pro support, market share, subjective color science and perceived ergonomics. If DPR was so against the grain in choosing the wrong comparison metrics, so technically inept in their operation of various cameras in their reviews or displayed a specific anti-bias towards particular brands, their readership and longevity would have proven otherwise. Clearly they understand their own target audience who consumes these reviews and have met that audience accordingly.

I'm not sure this is any different than me thinking that Canon should include IBIS or FF crop in video. It's important to "just" me...

Anyone can of course make their own decisions regardless of any review, but if you come out and criticize a review site of this scale, make sure to provide a resume and social presence consisting of plenty of specific technical reviews and images that can illustrate your own credibility in the areas being criticized. Otherwise, they are simply opinions.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Nobody you feel is go-to, reliable, objective anymore? Maybe I'm misreading you here...


Ha, I rarely put any weight behind a review because I never knew of a reviewer that wanted what I want...

Obviously there are good reviewers out there but even the most even handed end up showing patterns that I never managed to replicate, Dustin with his Tamrons, Brian with his anything with a Canon badge on it, etc etc. I watch them for trends and entertainment, I don't give a damn what they actually say and whatever that is plays no part in my purchasing decisions.

Actually no, I thought of one, the only reviewer I really trust is Kieth Cooper over at Northlight Images.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> DPR has decided that spec sheets, feature parity and performance are the metrics that mainly define which camera reviews well. Members that don't agree with DPR believe they should have considered other comparison metrics "they" feel are important to them like Canon's EF back catalog, pro support, market share, subjective color science and perceived ergonomics. If DPR was so against the grain in choosing the wrong comparison metrics, so technically inept in their operation of various cameras in their reviews or displayed a specific anti-bias towards particular brands, their readership and longevity would have proven otherwise. Clearly they understand their own target audience who consumes these reviews and have met that audience accordingly.
> 
> I'm not sure this is any different than me thinking that Canon should include IBIS or FF crop in video. It's important to "just" me...
> 
> Anyone can of course make their own decisions regardless of any review, but if you come out and criticize a review site of this scale, make sure to provide a resume and social presence consisting of plenty of specific technical reviews and images that can illustrate your own credibility in the areas being criticized. Otherwise, they are simply opinions.


That's a ridiculous premise, they are popular so what they count is important. American Idol gets more viewers than the news....


----------



## AlanF (Dec 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Ha, I rarely put any weight behind a review because I never knew of a reviewer that wanted what I want...
> 
> Obviously there are good reviewers out there but even the most even handed end up showing patterns that I never managed to replicate, Dustin with his Tamrons, Brian with his anything with a Canon badge on it, etc etc. I watch them for trends and entertainment, I don't give a damn what they actually say and whatever that is plays no part in my purchasing decisions.
> 
> Actually no, I thought of one, the only reviewer I really trust is Kieth Cooper over at Northlight Images.


All of the sites have their fans, but I am as sceptical as you and read all the reviews possible to search for some common truths.There are some sites that are pretty objective: lensrentals of course is scrupously so and extremely rigorous but limited; lenstip and opticallimits are unbiased and concentrate on metrics; ephotozine similarly so; TDP does give comprehensive and accurate accounts of Canon goods and is very useful but I don't like his lens comparison charts; and useful stuff can be gleaned from many others. There is a good living to be made by having a fan base on youtube and elsewhere.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> That's a ridiculous premise, they are popular so what they count is important. American Idol gets more viewers than the news....



But why are they popular in the first place? 

And last time I checked, American idol doesn't report on the news. If you told me American idol dictates what is happening in the news, yes, I would consider that a ridiculous premise based on popularity.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> But why are they popular in the first place?
> 
> And last time I checked, American idol doesn't report on the news. If you told me American idol dictates what is happening in the news, yes, I would consider that a ridiculous premise based on popularity.


The point is, entertainment is more popular than factual reporting...and DPR provides the former, but does not reliably deliver the latter.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> So is DPR part of a disinformation campaign against Canon?



I didn't even mention DPR, so I have no idea why you ask such a question. They have nothing whatsoever to do with my post.



YuengLinger said:


> Is anybody allowed to question Canon's products without being accused of ignorance and trolling?



Where did you get that idea? I said no such thing, of course. I presume most folks here can tell when someone is trolling. Saying factually incorrect things may not be noticed, but occasionally someone who knows the facts corrects someone. Usually this leads to endless arguing where the person who was ignorant endlessly defends their argument because they don't have the courage to admit that they didn't know. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being ignorant and not knowing. What is annoying, on the other hand, and totally bogs sown the forum, is when an ignorant person thinks they know and then endlessly defends their incorrect statements. While annoying, that is not the point either.

The point is - some folks just make up stuff. It is not factual, but they pretend it is. And some folks just endlessly repeat the stuff they make up to promote their particular agenda. And their agenda is usually - Canon sucks, or Sony is great - in all the oft-repeated variations. That is what I am talking about.

Legitimate criticism and questioning of Canon is perfectly OK, as I'm sure you are aware from all of my posts in the past. But, as usually happens on this forum, you have either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted my comments in order to make *your particular point*.



YuengLinger said:


> Keeping it real needs to be balanced with keeping it open to legitimate debate.



Absolutely. I guess we don't necessarily agree on what is legitimate debate.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 28, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I didn't even mention DPR, so I have no idea why you ask such a question. They have nothing whatsoever to do with my post.


Please see the title of this thread to understand the context.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 28, 2018)

This thread...


----------



## dak723 (Dec 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Please see the title of this thread to understand the context.
> View attachment 182340




Ha HA HA . Again, you just make up whatever baloney you want to support your (non)argument. It is often better to actually read what someone writes rather than create your own interpretation. I keep making that point and you keep ignoring it. Why, oh why, does this still surprise me!

Good luck to you and Happy New Year.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 31, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Ha HA HA . Again, you just make up whatever baloney you want to support your (non)argument. It is often better to actually read what someone writes rather than create your own interpretation. I keep making that point and you keep ignoring it. Why, oh why, does this still surprise me!
> 
> Good luck to you and Happy New Year.


Happy New Year to you to, dak723!


----------

