# Real world review: Canon EOS R by Fro



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 29, 2018)

> Jared Polin has completed his real world review of the Canon EOS R, you can view the 48-minute review above.
> For a stills camera, it appears to be a fantastic camera from Canon. Jared thinks you should definitely choose the EOS R over the Canon EOS 6D Mark II and he makes a pretty good argument to choose the EOS R over the EOS 5D Mark IV.
> On the video side of things, we know it’s definitely nowhere near as capable as other cameras from Sony, Fuji and Panasonic, but for the casual shooter, it may do just enough.
> While it’s not as good as the Sony A7 III, Canon appears to have done a fantastic job on their first iteration of the EOS R system. Mix with that the initial RF mount lens releases, and you really have a compelling system to think about when purchasing a full frame mirrorless camera.



Continue reading...


----------



## padam (Oct 29, 2018)

At this point the 6D Mark II can be had for less than half of an EOS R (plus adapter if one wants to use the cheaper lenses), that is not a small difference, and the controls are still more logically laid out, battery lasts longer, weight (with adapter) is basically the same, although technically there has been a considerable amount of advancement both in terms of photo and video quality and it is definitely smaller.

The EOS R interview shows very well who they are targeting with this camera. Someone who is an enthusiast and does not mind being an early adopter of a new system.


----------



## LesC (Oct 29, 2018)

Watched this last night on my 48" 4K TV - the video filmed on the EOS R looked excellent to me...
I'm very tempted to get one to go along with my 6D MKII , just a shame no GPS inbuilt. May wait to see what the lower spec EOS R rumoured for next year turns out to be. If it has a 6DMKII type sensor with GPS, I'd be sold on it...


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 29, 2018)

LesC said:


> Watched this last night on my 48" 4K TV - the video filmed on the EOS R looked excellent to me...
> I'm very tempted to get one to go along with my 6D MKII , just a shame no GPS inbuilt. May wait to see what the lower spec EOS R rumoured for next year turns out to be. If it has a 6DMKII type sensor with GPS, I'd be sold on it...



The GPS from your phone via the Canon APP works very well on the EOS R. It is very simple to connect in real world use. Once it is set up the first time, all you need to do is to open the Canon APP in your phone, and GPS data is communicated automatically. 

I have very brief experience with it, but didn’t notice a big hit on battery drain on either my phone, or camera.


----------



## andrei1989 (Oct 29, 2018)

i got bored after 13 minutes...too long...does he like it or not?


----------



## Fred Strobel (Oct 29, 2018)

LesC said:


> Watched this last night on my 48" 4K TV - the video filmed on the EOS R looked excellent to me...
> I'm very tempted to get one to go along with my 6D MKII , just a shame no GPS inbuilt. May wait to see what the lower spec EOS R rumoured for next year turns out to be. If it has a 6DMKII type sensor with GPS, I'd be sold on it...


The GPS lack is not that big of a deal. I am getting better accuracy and not getting photos that not finding the gps because you have not had it on long enough with the blue tooth phone connection then with my 6d. You just open the camera connect app on your phone after one time pairing you camera with the bluetooth connection and select smartphone on the GPS.


----------



## KrisK (Oct 29, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> i got bored after 13 minutes...too long...does he like it or not?



Yes; quite effusive, actually. He feels Canon did such a good job, he hopes Canon ditches the 5D V (and their entire dSLR lineup) and goes all in with R.

(Here's the tail-end where he sums it up):


----------



## TTran (Oct 29, 2018)

I always like Matt Ganger and Jared Polin camera reviews. Instead of basing the camera off specs and unrealistic lab test they actually use the camera in real life scenarios. Glad to see that the 5.5fps continuous auto focus is solid and acurate. Only time the camera couldn't keep up was when the bird started flying around.


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 29, 2018)

Haha, good joke, CR.
But seriously, have some dignity and don't give Jared the views or attention. The guy goes out of his way to misinform people for the sake of maintaining his cult of personality, not to mention is generally a gigantic dick to the majority of the industry unfortunate enough to come into direct contact with him. There are a hundred other more respectable, more helpful, more sincere, and less damaging YouTubers doing reviews of the EOS R you could feature instead.


----------



## bdeutsch (Oct 29, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> i got bored after 13 minutes...too long...does he like it or not?


Agreed. Though I did get far enough to see him struggling to remember whether the EF adapter was needed for each lens. That would definitely be me. 

*Deutsch Photography, Inc: NYC Wedding Photographer | Actor and Executive Headshots NYC | Family and Baby Portraits*


----------



## AlanF (Oct 29, 2018)

I watched some of it and then it morphed into Tony Northrup comparing Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony mirrorless for sports. I have to admit that TN actually looked good in comparison, but everything is relative. He claimed that the actual fps in AF-C mode were in practice about 50% of that claimed for all models apart from the A9, with the R at about 2.5/s.


----------



## mirage (Oct 29, 2018)

> While it’s not as good as the Sony A7 III, Canon appears to have done a fantastic job on their first iteration of the EOS R system.



"fantastic job". LOL.  

I'd rather use the term "half-assed" and give Canon grade "C" at best [or 3 out of 5 stars]. 

Canon managed to launch a 
* mirrorfree 6D III 
* at twice the price of 6D II with 
* lacklustre Servo-AF tracking/fps performance 
* "less-than-optimal" changes to UI
* crippled 4k video (not that I personally care, but some potential buyers do) 
* no IBIS
* and a single card slot 

And 25% more expensive than Nikon Z6 and Sony A7 III. oO 

As far as "compelling system" goes ... 2 fancy "irrelevant to most" pink unicorn lenses [albeit a bit more useful than a manual focus Nikon f/0.95 lens]. Plus RF 24-105 kit zoom not significantly smaller, lighter or better than existing EF versions. And one 35mm f/1.8 lens, weirdly enough with "1:2 pseudo macro" and little working distance from front lens. Not much of a system there (yet). 

Only major upside are the "really right" chosen R-mount parameters.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 29, 2018)

I bought the R as a upgrade for my SL2. I really think its best potential is for that type of upgrade, people who own APS-C cameras, have EF-s lenses, and want to go FF. They can get the R, keep using their EF-S lenses while adding RF lenses as they become available.

As Canon has found out, sales of DSLR's took a dive while people were waiting to see what Mirrorless looks like. With rumors of both a higher end and a lower end model, it looks like Canon is going all out.

A $1500 FF entry level mirrorless might turn the industry on its head. I think Canon can do that if they want.


----------



## mirage (Oct 29, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A $1500 FF entry level mirrorless might turn the industry on its head. I think Canon can do that if they want.



they will do it. (If) they have to. I am hoping their next quarter is down another -22%. Because then I will get my 999 "Mirrorless FF EOS R-ebel"!


----------



## gbc (Oct 29, 2018)

This tracks pretty closely with my experience with this over the last 2 and a half weeks. The biggest annoyance so far is definitely the banding issue, though I've done some unscientific tests with my 5dm4 and most of the banding visible from lights in the R is also visible in shots from the 5D, so I can't knock it too much for that I guess (How I miss old "real" light bulbs).
The biggest difference between specs and real-world usage for me is definitely battery life. I've gotten over 1000 shots each time I've used it, and the battery level only reaches a bar or two down from full.
And as Jared mentions, the touch screen focus point sliding alleviates some of the problems from no joystick, but you do have to move your face away from screen a bit. Even if you have the focus slide area set to the button corner, it seems like and contact to the rest of the screen makes it harder to drag the focus. And since my nose is usually touching the left side, this has been a (minor) problem.

I do wish that you could just set the function bar for straight-up AF, because the placement of the back AF button is now too close to the right side, which basically negates the better ergonomics of the bigger grip size. My hand get particularly sore after just five minutes of continuous shooting because I have to pinch my thumb in unnaturally far.

but bottom line... I started using this side by side with a 5Dm4 at first, but my last shooting sessions I've taken this by itself and I'm not missing the 5D. I usually had two cards in the 5D but I never shot to both at the same time since the SD card slowed things down, so one card isn't that big a deal for me. The burst rate/buffer are great, and I'm using a mid-level SD card. If I only need one body during a shoot, I'm totally comfortable taking this as my sole body (with a couple backup SD cards).


----------



## padam (Oct 29, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A $1500 FF entry level mirrorless might turn the industry on its head. I think Canon can do that if they want.


It's pretty much confirmed that it is going to be the next model that is coming before the higher-end model with a sensor more similar to the 6D Mark II.

https://www.canonrumors.com/two-canon-eos-r-series-bodies-coming-in-2019-cr2/

I don't think it will be anything earth-shattering and other manufacturers can also respond, but it will definitely further encourage people to enter into the system and just makes a bit more sense for the 'enthusiast' market. I just hope they don't cripple the EVF down to M50 level, other downgrades I can live with.


----------



## Mbell75 (Oct 29, 2018)

I am a 15 year Canon fanboy who sold my 6D and Canon glass and bought an a7iii and Sony lenses after seeing enough reviews of this camera. Its a fine camera if you are a casual shooting amateur taking pics at renaissance fairs. However, not so much if you are a pro portrait, wedding, sports or wildlife photographer thanks to the poor face tracking/eye AF, ridiculously slow FPS rate, one card slot, no IBIS and inferior 4k video. Not only is the competition from Sony and others better, its also cheaper. Zero reason to purchase this camera over the superior and cheaper competition unless you have about $10k worth of Canon glass laying around.


----------



## mirage (Oct 30, 2018)

Jethro said:


> we won't need to hear from you again?



Up to him/her to decide. Not to you. Being a Canon Fanboy is no prerequisite to post on this forum. Luckily. 
I always like getting direct, first-hand information and feedback from Non-Fanboys.


----------



## Mbell75 (Oct 30, 2018)

Jethro said:


> Well I guess you are affirmed in your decision to 'go Sony', and we won't need to hear from you again?



Not necessarily. I have no issues owning multiple systems and I might be interested when Canon releases a real FF mirrorless. However, I am not paying $4k just to get dual card slots, 10fps, full 4k video, a joystick and a wheel when the competition delivers all that for half the price. The prices on the insanely expensive RF lenses needs to come down quite a bit too IMO.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 30, 2018)

Jethro said:


> Well I guess you are affirmed in your decision to 'go Sony', and we won't need to hear from you again?


What a crybaby? If there are other options out there I would think it would be smart to hear about them. Yall act like you have stock in Canon or something.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 30, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> Not necessarily. I have no issues owning multiple systems and I might be interested when Canon releases a real FF mirrorless. However, I am not paying $4k just to get dual card slots, 10fps, full 4k video, a joystick and a wheel when the competition delivers all that for half the price. The prices on the insanely expensive RF lenses needs to come down quite a bit too IMO.


 The glass( not the bodies) is apparently some of the best around so I dont see how or why it would go down. The prices seem comparable to other first party top tier glass


----------



## Talys (Oct 30, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> I am a 15 year Canon fanboy who sold my 6D and Canon glass and bought an a7iii and Sony lenses after seeing enough reviews of this camera. Its a fine camera if you are a casual shooting amateur taking pics at renaissance fairs. However, not so much if you are a pro portrait, wedding, sports or wildlife photographer thanks to the poor face tracking/eye AF, ridiculously slow FPS rate, one card slot, no IBIS and inferior 4k video. Not only is the competition from Sony and others better, its also cheaper. Zero reason to purchase this camera over the superior and cheaper competition unless you have about $10k worth of Canon glass laying around.



Here's a reason: Autofocus that isn't a POS.

The Eye AF on the Canon R is actually easier to use than Sony, and I'd argue, better. AI Tracking of a subject the Sony is better, but continuous autofocus on the Canon is far superior. I doubt there are many pro sports or wildlife photographers packing Sony.


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 30, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> Not necessarily. I have no issues owning multiple systems and I might be interested when Canon releases a real FF mirrorless. However, I am not paying $4k just to get dual card slots, 10fps, full 4k video, a joystick and a wheel when the competition delivers all that for half the price. The prices on the insanely expensive RF lenses needs to come down quite a bit too IMO.


Is the RF 35mm f/1.8 lens "insanely expensive" for you?


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> "fantastic job". LOL.
> 
> I'd rather use the term "half-assed" and give Canon grade "C" at best [or 3 out of 5 stars].
> 
> ...


First, the R is better than the A7 III in a bunch of ways, especially ergonomics and EVF and higher res sensor. Second, you fail at basic math; it's not 25% more. Third, the whole huge EF system works with the new R camera, so "not much of a system" is not a big deal.


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 30, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> i got bored after 13 minutes...too long...does he like it or not?


Did you know that you can skip ahead on YouTube ... right to the end of the video where there's usually a conclusion? Or that you can increase the playback speed? It's easy.


----------



## padam (Oct 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What EVF! If they made a $1500 entry level, EVF would be a add-on. Canon severely differentiates their models so that you get less when the price is less. The lack of a EVF, for example will not stop those who want to get into FF Mirrorless at a low price point. Everything about such a camera would be a subtle step down that new entry level photographers may not worry about. They would be comparing it with a M6.


I highly doubt that (even the M6 has the M5 alongside it as a separate model with similar electronics) but we'll see. I also think that the price point will be a bit higher, like 1700$


----------



## Jethro (Oct 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> Up to him/her to decide. Not to you. Being a Canon Fanboy is no prerequisite to post on this forum. Luckily.
> I always like getting direct, first-hand information and feedback from Non-Fanboys.


What I actually said (my post seems to have disappeared) was "_Well I guess you are affirmed in your decision to 'go Sony'_, and we won't need to hear from you again?". The replier wasn't providing any practical insight into the EOS R, just letting us know why he (apparently) changed from being a lifelong Canon user to Sony, and how the specs (ie not any actual usage) of the EOS R would not make him change back, given the obvious advantages of Sony over Canon. That is: he was 'affirmed' in his view. In the absence of any other insights, not sure really what else he would have to say on a forum about Canon cameras. But obviously he's as welcome as anyone.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 30, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> What a crybaby? If there are other options out there I would think it would be smart to hear about them. Yall act like you have stock in Canon or something.


Yes, because we haven't heard anything at all about the A7iii before in this context.


----------



## tron (Oct 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So post some of the poor photos from the "R", or is your review based on what You hear from others who don'
> 
> 
> What EVF! If they made a $1500 entry level, EVF would be a add-on. Canon severely differentiates their models so that you get less when the price is less. The lack of a EVF, for example will not stop those who want to get into FF Mirrorless at a low price point. Everything about such a camera would be a subtle step down that new entry level photographers may not worry about. They would be comparing it with a M6.


In that case a 6DII in Live view mode would do as well (and it would accept EF lenses without adapters).


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 30, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> I am a 15 year Canon fanboy who sold my 6D and Canon glass and bought an a7iii and Sony lenses after seeing enough reviews of this camera. Its a fine camera if you are a casual shooting amateur taking pics at renaissance fairs. However, not so much if you are a pro portrait, wedding, sports or wildlife photographer thanks to the poor face tracking/eye AF, ridiculously slow FPS rate, one card slot, no IBIS and inferior 4k video. Not only is the competition from Sony and others better, its also cheaper. Zero reason to purchase this camera over the superior and cheaper competition unless you have about $10k worth of Canon glass laying around.



Before investing any more in Sony glass, you might want to do your due diligence on the lens mount, because Sony didn’t when they released their A7-series. From Lensrentals.com:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anonnikon-mirrorless-camera-unfanboy-opinion/

See also here: 

https://www.canonrumors.com/here-is-the-official-canon-eos-r-system-white-paper/

Basically the links say that Sony went for a too narrow lens mount for them to make competitive optics, when they chose to use the same mount as they had on their APS-C mirrorless. Further, with the Z series, Nikon finally got their larger mount. They struggled with a smaller mount for many years. 

In 5 years, I am sure many Sony users will envy Canon and Nikon users, because they have, and will always have more compelling lens options than Sony.


----------



## KrisK (Oct 30, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> I am a 15 year Canon fanboy who sold my 6D and Canon glass and bought an a7iii and Sony lenses after seeing enough reviews of this camera. Its a fine camera if you are a casual shooting amateur taking pics at renaissance fairs. However, not so much if you are a pro portrait, wedding, sports or wildlife photographer thanks to the poor face tracking/eye AF, ridiculously slow FPS rate, one card slot, no IBIS and inferior 4k video. Not only is the competition from Sony and others better, its also cheaper. Zero reason to purchase this camera over the superior and cheaper competition unless you have about $10k worth of Canon glass laying around.



The EVF in the Sony is, literally, a dealbreaker for me. On my latest field trip to Best Buy, I was shocked at how good the EVF in the R felt, and how poor the A7III (and X-T2) feel in comparison.

Still waiting to get my hands on an X-T3 and a Z; curious to see how those compare.


----------



## FroKnowsPhoto (Oct 30, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Sorry Jarod but this one really comes off as a puff piece despite the A7iii mia culpa at the end. Were you really demostrating continuous focus with a guy sitting in a chair? Word is Canon marketing has been throwing its weight around getting people to support the R. I imagine they are really putting the screws to these you tubers.



Hi, I think you may want to re-watch the video, please spell my name right Jared. The guy sitting in the chair had nothing to do with AF and everything to do with attempting to fill up the buffer. Second, "word is canon marketing has been throwing..." cool, show some examples or proof of this, i'd love to see that information. You imagine they are putting the screws to us? Where do you get this information, so uninformed and flat out WRONG. You have no idea what goes into doing what we do, so stop trying to saying everything is a "puff" piece or we must be getting paid. 

You know what it costs me to create this real world review in man hours? You have no clue what it takes to run this FREE service, so please get informed before spreading false information.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So post some of the poor photos from the "R"...



Don't encourage him, it is all too easy take poor photos on any camera.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 30, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Don't encourage him, it is all too easy take poor photos on any camera.



True! I'm a professional at poor photos!! I did not realize that I had posted that, I wrote it and thought I hit delete, instead it copied replies to two different posts together. They are both gone now.

I can't compare it to Sony because I have not used them together. The R is not equal to my 5D MK IV in AF speed, but the resulting images are the same, and AF is much more accurate. I Have AFMA's my 5D MK IV lenses and camera, its doing pretty well except when I get near MFD where it front focuses. The R focuses perfectly at all distances, that is its strength.

I do not like its ergonomics, my hand is too big for it, but it is definitely a better fit than the SL2 its replacing. I really liked the SL2, but the R is much better. I had a Sigma 18-35 for my SL2 whih I only used in live view because it needed AFMA, and to calibrate it using the dock was too long of a process. It focused perfectly with my 15-85, and with my "L" lenses. The Sigma 18-35 went to a new owner this morning. Me and my son are planning to give my SL2 to his daughter for her birthday, but its 5 months off, I might be better off selling the SL2 and getting her a "M" when the Christmas sales hit.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 30, 2018)

As for the EVF. I turned off the lights in the photo room of my studio and focused on my backdrop. I could not see the backdrop in the dark. 

Here is what happened.

1. Viewfinder was black nothing! I don't know why it started dark like that, I need to check that again.

2. Half Press of shutter button, AF assist light came on, camera focused fairly fast but not instantly, I'd say a second or maybe two to achieve focus. That backdrop that my daughter had been using had a strong high contrast pattern, so there was a lot for AF to grab onto.

3. The viewfinder lit up brightly, and a clean clear view of the backdrop was visible in the dark room. ISO was pegged at 40,000, aperture wide open at f/2.5. I did not check shutter speed because I was just checking the EVF and AF assist as well as focusing in the dark.

There were a couple of slight light leaks thru the covered window to the rear, so after 10 minutes, my eyes adjusted and the room then appeared dark but not total. I might wait until its dark outside and spend more time. I'd have to turn off the AF assist light to see how well it focused without it, but I doubt it could in that light. 

The EVF seems pretty good for still scenes, I have not tried fast moving objects, that would be pushing it.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 30, 2018)

You know what it costs me to create this real world review in man hours? You have no clue what it takes to run this FREE service, so please get informed before spreading false information.[/QUOTE]

Post Deleted


----------



## Viggo (Oct 31, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> You know what it costs me to create this real world review in man hours? You have no clue what it takes to run this FREE service, so please get informed before spreading false information.



Post Deleted[/QUOTE]
I can still read the post with that quote?


----------



## Mbell75 (Oct 31, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> Is the RF 35mm f/1.8 lens "insanely expensive" for you?



I have zero use for a 35mm as a portrait shooter. I only do 50, 85 and 135. Would consider the 50 and 28-70 if one didn't have to take out a loan to purchase them. $5300 for TWO lenses? lol. Pass.


----------



## Mbell75 (Oct 31, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> Before investing any more in Sony glass, you might want to do your due diligence on the lens mount, because Sony didn’t when they released their A7-series. From Lensrentals.com:
> 
> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...anonnikon-mirrorless-camera-unfanboy-opinion/
> 
> ...



Thanks but I dont want or need 3 pound $3k lenses. The pricing, size and wight is completely absurd. Unlike the R, Sony users are not limited to only Sony lenses. Tons of great lenses from Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and others. Canon has foolishly made the R a closed system to 3rd party lens companies. Massive mistake.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 31, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> Thanks but I dont want or need 3 pound $3k lenses. The pricing, size and wight is completely absurd. Unlike the R, Sony users are not limited to only Sony lenses. Tons of great lenses from Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and others. Canon has foolishly made the R a closed system to 3rd party lens companies. Massive mistake.


What are you on about? Every one of those brands you mentioned makes EF mount lenses, and you can easily and without degrading IQ use them on the R, including all lenses for crop too...


----------



## Mbell75 (Oct 31, 2018)

Viggo said:


> What are you on about? Every one of those brands you mentioned makes EF mount lenses, and you can easily and without degrading IQ use them on the R, including all lenses for crop too...



So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 31, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.


You obviously haven’t tried it. And that’s what you would have to do on a Sony anyway, use lenses that NEVER was made for that mount at all. Plus I have the option to use the epic RF lenses....

With the R I get more out of my EF glass as well. Where I always had very sharp corners with the 35 L II for example, in the DSLR’s there wasn’t any way of focusing there and I can now do that...

Also a hundred times easier to use Zeiss and MF with the assist of the R...


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 31, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> Thanks but I dont want or need 3 pound $3k lenses. The pricing, size and wight is completely absurd. Unlike the R, Sony users are not limited to only Sony lenses. Tons of great lenses from Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and others. Canon has foolishly made the R a closed system to 3rd party lens companies. Massive mistake.



You are missing the point. Due to the difference in the mount, the exotic R lenses (50 L and 28-70L) that are large and heavy and expensive can’t be made for the Sony-system, at least not without making them considerably larger and heavier. 

Canon will release smaller high quality lenses as well, such as the RF 35 f1.8. The market for such lenses is big. But as a first release, Canon opted to show off what they are able to do, much like they did with the 50 f1.0 L back in the days. 

In 5 years, most Sony shooters will envy the RF-lens line up, probably the Nikon Z-lens line up as well. Mark my words.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 31, 2018)

Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere at canonrumors (and I've not had a chance to watch the video yet) but how fast is AF using the adapter? Out of curiosity, last week I rented the new Nikon mirrorless camera and a native lens and an adapter. The native lens focused extremely fast and accurately, but using Nikon G lenses (I recently inherited some Nikon equipment and was wondering whether to keep any of it) via the adapter it was slower, seeming to involve the same three step process (arrive near the subject, move a bit beyond it and then return) that used to occur using a metabones adapter with Canon lenses on a Sony (albeit quicker). Not a problem with stationary subjects, but not so good if you need instant focus.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 31, 2018)

Talys said:


> Here's a reason: Autofocus that isn't a POS.
> 
> The Eye AF on the Canon R is actually easier to use than Sony, and I'd argue, better. AI Tracking of a subject the Sony is better, but continuous autofocus on the Canon is far superior. I doubt there are many pro sports or wildlife photographers packing Sony.



Here's another reason: Canon's color science. Until Sony can come close to Canon color, it is not even a consideration for me.
Here's another reason: Canon ergonomics. Or maybe I should just simplify that to say, Sony's awful ergonomics.
Here's another reason: Canon's greater flange distance. If you can't afford Sony's pro level lenses and get their kit lenses, you are screwed by Sony's short flange distance.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 31, 2018)

Talys said:


> Here's a reason: Autofocus that isn't a POS.
> 
> The Eye AF on the Canon R is actually easier to use than Sony, and I'd argue, better. AI Tracking of a subject the Sony is better, but continuous autofocus on the Canon is far superior.  I doubt there are many pro sports or wildlife photographers packing Sony.



I know a couple, they love their Sony AF, and frame rate, and truly silent silent shooting.

All cameras nowadays are way more capable than the people using them and certainly more capable than the vast majority of internet pundits, forum dwellers and pontificators. A pro photographer can use a 70D and run rings around a keen amateur with a 1DX/5D MkIV/Sony A9, it is very rarely about features, they all vastly surpass the features of pro cameras from years ago, it is about understanding your sport or subjects, about knowing your timing, preparation, practice, understanding of light, composition and consistency, blah blah blah.....

Stop arguing incessantly about the small differences between different cameras or manufacturers, or accept what you are doing is an entirely different thing from owning camera gear for the object of taking pictures.


----------



## bhf3737 (Oct 31, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.


And your argument is that better spend almost the same amount + 500$ (for an adapter) on another mirrorless to adapt those "inferior lenses designed for DSLR cameras" to it. How wise it sounds?


----------



## Talys (Oct 31, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I know a couple, they love their Sony AF, and frame rate, and truly silent silent shooting.
> 
> All cameras nowadays are way more capable than the people using them and certainly more capable than the vast majority of internet pundits, forum dwellers and pontificators. A pro photographer can use a 70D and run rings around a keen amateur with a 1DX/5D MkIV/Sony A9, it is very rarely about features, they all vastly surpass the features of pro cameras from years ago, it is about understanding your sport or subjects, about knowing your timing, preparation, practice, understanding of light, composition and consistency, blah blah blah.....
> 
> Stop arguing incessantly about the small differences between different cameras or manufacturers, or accept what you are doing is an entirely different thing from owning camera gear for the object of taking pictures.


Excuse me, but are you trying to tell me that Sony's lens portfolio will work for most professional sports or wildlife professionals? I find that pretty hard to believe.

Regarding autofocus speeds, flagship DSLRs are indisputably faster, especially with extenders.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2018)

Talys said:


> Excuse me, but are you trying to tell me that Sony's lens portfolio will work for most professional sports or wildlife professionals? I find that pretty hard to believe.
> 
> Regarding autofocus speeds, flagship DSLRs are indisputably faster, especially with extenders.



No, I'm not. What I am saying is I personally have empirical evidence that the Canon/Nikon stranglehold on sports photographers (and wildlife shooters) is no longer immutable. There are features from other manufacturers that make them very attractive for reasons other than the obvious, being able to shoot silently at 20fps means you don't need a 400-600mm focal length to get the action, you can shoot unique perspectives with much shorter focal lengths and not disturb the action. This doesn't work for all sports by any means, but the pro sports shooters I know who have switched are golf and tennis pros and they are loving the unique features the Sony's give them. Indeed those features have given them the ability to shoot images not previously doable so their work is standing out, all systems are compromises, they find the compromise equation using Sony's is working out very well for them personally.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 1, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> I am a 15 year Canon fanboy who sold my 6D and Canon glass and bought an a7iii and Sony lenses after seeing enough reviews of this camera. Its a fine camera if you are a casual shooting amateur taking pics at renaissance fairs. However, not so much if you are a pro portrait, wedding, sports or wildlife photographer thanks to the poor face tracking/eye AF, ridiculously slow FPS rate, one card slot, no IBIS and inferior 4k video. Not only is the competition from Sony and others better, its also cheaper. Zero reason to purchase this camera over the superior and cheaper competition unless you have about $10k worth of Canon glass laying around.


Just pointing out that it's interesting you were a Canon fanboy for 15 years but decided, only after selling your gear for Sony, to join discussions on a forum devoted to Canon gear.

Best of luck, because that's what you'll need with your gear, as Sony is still pondering the whole repair and service infrastructure concept.

In earlier posts have you told us what kind of photographer you are? Because you claim to be speaking on behalf of all types. From a portrait photographer's stand point, I'd say the EOS R is a very good start, if not aimed squarely at current owners of a 5DIV level body. And the lenses look great.

Seems here that Nikon has done a great job with their first higher end mirrorless, the Z7, I think it's called. If only they had introduced Canon quality lenses with it, I'd be tempted right now. However, I'll wait for Canon's next release, which should be an upgrade to the 5DIV, and also promises to be compelling. You see, Canon was clever enough to put out a good mirrorless body with fantastic lenses, keeping some of us happy photographers from jumping ship. This is a sign of a solid company that is acting in the present and planning for the future.

But until Sony has a better track record of supporting its products and not abruptly losing interest in whole categories of electronics, I'll stick with one of the big players.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 1, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.



Thats what I'm doing to start. The benefit is that those EF lenses not focus accurately at all distances where they used to only have one distance that was a sweet spot for the most accurate autofocus.

MY "L" EF lenses are hardly inferior, the R was designed to use them with their full capability. At some point when all my cameras are mirrorless, if that ever happens, then there should be high quality reasonably priced RF lenses to replace my 70-200 II, my 100-400 II, and my 24-70 f/2.8 II. Right now, only the 28-70 could potentially replace my 24-70, but its too big and too expensive (at this point), and I can move my EF lenses back and forth between my SL2, My 5D MK IV, and my R. That's worth a lot.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 1, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.


Glad to see you haven't paid any attention to those that are using their EF lenses on their new R cameras. The lenses aren't old (they still make them, just so you know) and they are not inferior. Plus now you get new functionality of various adapters. Great Idea, you ask? Yes, Great Idea!


----------



## snappy604 (Nov 1, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> Thanks but I dont want or need 3 pound $3k lenses. The pricing, size and wight is completely absurd. Unlike the R, Sony users are not limited to only Sony lenses. Tons of great lenses from Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and others. Canon has foolishly made the R a closed system to 3rd party lens companies. Massive mistake.



I think the point is that Canon is committed to making more cost effective lenses for the R as well as the high end ones.. The initial line-up was more to demonstrate what is possible with the new standard.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 1, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Glad to see you haven't paid any attention to those that are using their EF lenses on their new R cameras. The lenses aren't old (they still make them, just so you know) and they are not inferior. Plus now you get new functionality of various adapters. Great Idea, you ask? Yes, Great Idea!



Exactly! Some of us have even spent far more than that on new mirrorless cameras (Sony a7rII and III) in part to be able more easily to use MF lenses, some new, some quite old.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 1, 2018)

Now I've seen the review, all the way through, and I have to say that overall it is an excellent introduction and discussion. Ergonomics are definitely one of the drawbacks for me, and Jared addressed this very fairly.

I do not agree that this is a replacement for the 5D4 and I don't think it's targeted at 5D4 owners. If I were buying a camera for the first time, a full frame, I might be drawn to the Nikon z7. But that is a higher and body, and being a 5D4 owner, I'm fine waiting for Canon's next full frame mirrorless release.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 2, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> I think the point is that Canon is committed to making more cost effective lenses for the R as well as the high end ones.. The initial line-up was more to demonstrate what is possible with the new standard.



And to avoid the reputation the M system has for small, slow lenses.


----------



## mirage (Nov 2, 2018)

koenkooi said:


> And to avoid the reputation the M system has for small, slow lenses.



lol. I consider that reputation a key strength of the EOS M system. Decent IQ, compact size, best price/value ratio in market. Strike.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 2, 2018)

mirage said:


> lol. I consider that reputation a key strength of the EOS M system. Decent IQ, compact size, best price/value ratio in market. Strike.



It's a small distinction, but an important one: I'm talking about the reputation, not the actual lenses  I have the full set of EF-M lenses, except for the 18-150. 
The launch with the 22mm f/2 was genius, but it took Canon 6 years to beat that with the 32mm f/1.4. I'm hoping for some more EF-M fast primes, like a 16mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.4 (just so Canon can mess with ahsanford).

But back on topic: If Canon had launched the RF system with lenses like a 24-70mm f/3.5-5.6, 50mm f/2.8 STM, the message would have been received by me as "We did a FF mirrorless like you asked, with some mediocre lenses, now go away".


----------



## snappy604 (Nov 2, 2018)

and I just wanted to say thanks to Fro and others for their reviews. 

I tend to be a generalist when shooting photos (BIFs, wildlife, people, scenery, macro etc) so the info is useful to a degree. Still wish people would cover some of my fringe / niche cases in reviews (low light movement, e.g. bands in pubs).. maybe one day! Its not compelling enough to buy right away, but maybe once price drops.


----------



## Refurb7 (Nov 3, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> I have zero use for a 35mm as a portrait shooter. I only do 50, 85 and 135. Would consider the 50 and 28-70 if one didn't have to take out a loan to purchase them. $5300 for TWO lenses? lol. Pass.


That's ok. Reasonably-priced lenses that you have zero use for will meet the needs of other people.


----------



## mirage (Nov 3, 2018)

koenkooi said:


> But back on topic: If Canon had launched the RF system with lenses like a 24-70mm f/3.5-5.6, 50mm f/2.8 STM, the message would have been received by me as "We did a FF mirrorless like you asked, with some mediocre lenses, now go away".



yes, possibly. but only to a few people primarily concerned with "perception, brand image, bragging rights, bling factor" etc.

but vast majority of potential customers are much more interested in "bang for the buck". 

given the fact that Canon was not able yet to release a "pro-grade"'EOS R body (equivalent in performance to 5DSR II or 1DX III) but only a "mirrorfree 6D III" it would have been smarter to offer it at an "attractive 6D-class price", lower than A7 III and Z6, eg 1699,- along with an RF 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS STM (equivalent to EF non-L) in kit for 1999.

plus a few RF lenses not more expensive than equivalent EF glass -eg
RF 16-35/4.0 IS STM
RF 24-70/4.0 IS STM
RF 24/2.8 IS STM
RF 35/1.8 NOT macro (useless anyways)
RF 50/1.8 IS STM
RF 100/2.0 IS STM
...
then Canon would be scrambling to meet demand and fill an avalanche of orders. Entry barrier to move into R system much lower and more enticing to more enthusiasts as well as pros willing to "try out the new platform with limited commitment first, rather than having to go all-in".

Canon could then still have launched some of their "pink unicorn lens fancies" in 2019 along with an EOS R1 ("flagship") and R5 (hi rez) bodies once those are ready to go. Second massive wave of "buzz". More orders and more excitement for R eco-system.

would have made a lot more (business) sense to me.

but ofc "Canon is #1, Canon knows better, Canon knows best, Canon is infallible".


----------



## Viggo (Nov 3, 2018)

I disagree, the EOS R is by far the body that has been underestimated the worst ever... I can live very happily with it and the crazy glass released made it even more attractive.

The thing is I get more and better than my 1dx2 for 60% less money, which makes it possible to have that awesome glass and still have a superb body, for a lot less money...

A stroke of genius from Canons part again imo...


----------



## Mbell75 (Nov 4, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> I think the point is that Canon is committed to making more cost effective lenses for the R as well as the high end ones.. The initial line-up was more to demonstrate what is possible with the new standard.



More waiting for reasonably priced RF lenses, more waiting for a real FF camera,,,its about to be 2019. How long are canon users supposed to wait? No wonder so many have switched to other systems. Its going to be at least another 2 years before Canon has a decent RF lineup and a quality body. But hey, maybe when Canon does their usual 3 year incremental update, they will throw their peasants a bone and let them finally have full 4k video with the EOS Rii in 2022...


----------



## snappy604 (Nov 5, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> More waiting for reasonably priced RF lenses, more waiting for a real FF camera,,,its about to be 2019. How long are canon users supposed to wait? No wonder so many have switched to other systems. Its going to be at least another 2 years before Canon has a decent RF lineup and a quality body. But hey, maybe when Canon does their usual 3 year incremental update, they will throw their peasants a bone and let them finally have full 4k video with the EOS Rii in 2022...




I have to admit I feel frustrated by Canon's offerrings for the last decade.. the 5d followed by the 5d MkII was revolutionary when it happened... then they went on a decade of slow, small incremental polishing/evolution. Holding on and milking their SLR share. I get it, I felt frustrated by it and have expressed it previously.

But I have to disagree with this as a slow 'throw the peasants a bone' release. The body was decent.. weirdly backwards in some ways, but they made a significant long term commitment to a new format.. a huge number of people have an investment in the EOS system and you have to be damn careful as a rapid transition can sink loyalty quickly.

Putting out 3 high end lenses + 1 more entry level is hardly slow and shows a long term commitment to a very significant change they made. I don't recall Sony mirrorless on their first iteration having good lens support. In a sense this is revolutionary and shows a lot of potential.. shame the body feels...rushed. Its almost like they underspecified the CPU and data buses to handle the new deluge of data produced by the new standard. They will catch up, I have no doubt.. but they were late to the game, so a bit of patience is warranted.

I'm already tempted by their release... but waiting to see what comes next (seems like they have a fair bit in dev already).


----------



## Mbell75 (Nov 5, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> I have to admit I feel frustrated by Canon's offerrings for the last decade.. the 5d followed by the 5d MkII was revolutionary when it happened... then they went on a decade of slow, small incremental polishing/evolution. Holding on and milking their SLR share. I get it, I felt frustrated by it and have expressed it previously.
> 
> But I have to disagree with this as a slow 'throw the peasants a bone' release. The body was decent.. weirdly backwards in some ways, but they made a significant long term commitment to a new format.. a huge number of people have an investment in the EOS system and you have to be damn careful as a rapid transition can sink loyalty quickly.
> 
> ...



Good points and I agree the EOS R feels rushed, I think they were caught off guard by the Nikon release and weren't planning on releasing theirs until next year. However. still no excuse for it to be lacking so many features the competition has for hundreds of dollars less. I dont think Canon has the ability to catch up when it comes to bodies. Sony is far superior when it comes to sensors, Canon has several issues that really hinder things like fps and DR. They just dont have the tech to compete with Sony there and lets face it, its their awesome lenses that have always been their bread and butter.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 5, 2018)

Wow, seems I entered Bittertown here...


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 5, 2018)

Mbell75 said:


> Good points and I agree the EOS R feels rushed, I think they were caught off guard by the Nikon release and weren't planning on releasing theirs until next year.[..]



I have the impression they moved up the launch of the R by a few months (for whatever reasons), which is why not all RF lenses are available yet and Canon was so adamant about both new firmware coming out soon(TM) and which changes it would have.

I don't have a good guess for when the original launch was planned, late November would enable it to profit from the western holiday buying craze, but the firmware being scheduled for early next year would move it closer to your guess.


----------



## padam (Nov 5, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I disagree, the EOS R is by far the body that has been underestimated the worst ever... I can live very happily with it and the crazy glass released made it even more attractive.
> 
> The thing is I get more and better than my 1dx2 for 60% less money, which makes it possible to have that awesome glass and still have a superb body, for a lot less money...
> 
> A stroke of genius from Canons part again imo...


It is what it is, it shouldn't be declared as the greatest (it will be far from that even if they do some firmware fixes), and it shouldn't be loathed either.
1DX II is a very different camera to so it shouldn't be compared like that. Even Canon admits that for predictive AF it lags way behind their DSLR cameras. Video is also severely lacking in comparison (even if it is a much newer camera) despite some of the new goodies like external 10-bit with C-Log.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 5, 2018)

koenkooi said:


> I have the impression they moved up the launch of the R by a few months (for whatever reasons), which is why not all RF lenses are available yet and Canon was so adamant about both new firmware coming out soon(TM) and which changes it would have.
> 
> I don't have a good guess for when the original launch was planned, late November would enable it to profit from the western holiday buying craze, but the firmware being scheduled for early next year would move it closer to your guess.



I think it was launched close to when they intended to launch it. You don't just manufacture thousands of units to sit in warehouses and incur costs without getting revenue in return, and Canon tends to have less inventory availability issues than Nikon because it is able to manufacture more.

Sure, there can be delays as they bring the launch lenses to market, so 4 were announced but only three are currently available. And acknowledging a firmware fix to address eyeAF is smart because it gives them time to get it right and to test it properly without delaying the launch. The fact that the R system is available staunches losing switches to Sony. People can see what the RF system can bring (50, 28-70, etc), and that is a good start to build a system around. I'm ok with them having the fastest glass without IS, but if Canon is able to get the f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) with IS, then IBIS is less important. And if Canon delivers a body with IBIS, then IBIS + IS > Sony IBIS because Sony's G master 16-35 and 24-70 do not have OSS.


----------



## padam (Nov 5, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I think it was launched close to when they intended to launch it. You don't just manufacture thousands of units to sit in warehouses and incur costs without getting revenue in return, and Canon tends to have less inventory availability issues than Nikon because it is able to manufacture more.


Agreed, companies are adjusting to each other far less than most people think.



Random Orbits said:


> Sure, there can be delays as they bring the launch lenses to market, so 4 were announced but only three are currently available. And acknowledging a firmware fix to address eyeAF is smart because it gives them time to get it right and to test it properly without delaying the launch. The fact that the R system is available staunches losing switches to Sony. People can see what the RF system can bring (50, 28-70, etc), and that is a good start to build a system around. I'm ok with them having the fastest glass without IS, but if Canon is able to get the f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) with IS, then IBIS is less important. And if Canon delivers a body with IBIS, then IBIS + IS > Sony IBIS because Sony's G master 16-35 and 24-70 do not have OSS.



That's far too conclusive, by the time Canon comes out with the next generation and IBIS, a 24-70 2.8 OSS can also be added to Sony's lineup. Just because they have more lenses does not mean that development will stop or that it will only focus on telephoto lenses.
From the patents, I don't think the RF 16-35 2.8 will have IS like the 24-70 2.8, but we'll see.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 5, 2018)

padam said:


> It is what it is, it shouldn't be declared as the greatest (it will be far from that even if they do some firmware fixes), and it shouldn't be loathed either.
> 1DX II is a very different camera to so it shouldn't be compared like that. Even Canon admits that for predictive AF it lags way behind their DSLR cameras. Video is also severely lacking in comparison (even if it is a much newer camera) despite some of the new goodies like external 10-bit with C-Log.


How much have you used it?


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 5, 2018)

padam said:


> Agreed, companies are adjusting to each other far less than most people think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except that although Sony's GM lineup is larger than RF, it is still much smaller than EF. there are other gaps that are higher priorities than a 24-70 OSS. The fact that EF can work as well on RF as it does on EF bodies gives Canon time to transition. Look at all the Sony GMs -- they're fighting the last war. 16-35/24-70/100-400/400mm prime. Those are all targeted at Nikon/Canon F/EF counterparts. Canon just moved the bar with 28-70 f/2 and 50 f/1.2. Those are designs that might not be practical/producible on the FE mount.


----------



## padam (Nov 5, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Except that although Sony's GM lineup is larger than RF, it is still much smaller than EF. there are other gaps that are higher priorities than a 24-70 OSS. The fact that EF can work as well on RF as it does on EF bodies gives Canon time to transition. Look at all the Sony GMs -- they're fighting the last war. 16-35/24-70/100-400/400mm prime. Those are all targeted at Nikon/Canon F/EF counterparts. Canon just moved the bar with 28-70 f/2 and 50 f/1.2. Those are designs that might not be practical/producible on the FE mount.


A patent for the 28-70 f/2 does exist. But if they decide to do it, they can just wait until they come up with even bigger (more expensive) camera bodies to handle the weight a bit better.
Again, these are things that we don't really know, so it is too early to judge.
Using bigger EF lenses have the same problem as Sony did when adopting early (but to a lesser degree). The camera body is too small and light for them and the weight is pushed more forward.


----------



## zim (Nov 6, 2018)

FroKnowsPhoto said:


> Hi, I think you may want to re-watch the video, please spell my name right Jared. The guy sitting in the chair had nothing to do with AF and everything to do with attempting to fill up the buffer. Second, "word is canon marketing has been throwing..." cool, show some examples or proof of this, i'd love to see that information. You imagine they are putting the screws to us? Where do you get this information, so uninformed and flat out WRONG. You have no idea what goes into doing what we do, so stop trying to saying everything is a "puff" piece or we must be getting paid.
> 
> You know what it costs me to create this real world review in man hours? You have no clue what it takes to run this FREE service, so please get informed before spreading false information.



Welcome to the mad house! 
Keep calm and carry on shooting RAW


----------

