# Firmware: Canon EOS R v1.3.0



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 23, 2019)

> Canon has released new firmware for the Canon EOS R, and just like the new EOS RP firmware, we’re only getting added support for the RF 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 IS USM lens.
> *Firmware Version 1.3.0 incorporates the following enhancement:*
> 
> Support for the RF24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM lens has been added.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## vlasena (Aug 23, 2019)

Things that needs to be addressed at EOS R IMHO:
1. changing from manual iso to auto iso - when changing manual iso settings via touch bar or control ring it is possible to choose all ISO values, however auto iso is not selectable. to set it you need to wait ~2-3sec and than it is selectable, which is quite annoying.
2. if lens control ring is set to change iso values than changing direction is not possible clockwise is always decreasing iso values.
3. time-lapse movie interval is set to minimum of 2 seconds, would be nice to have it smaller, at least 1 second should be possible without the need to change anything in the interface. 
4. would be nice to have c-log also in time-lapse movie mode, same as above.
5. interval timer should be added, why do we have it on EOS RP and not here?
6. canon 90d has support for 120P in Full HD with Digic 8 processor, why do we not have it with EOS R?


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 23, 2019)

Why does each new lens need a firmware update?


----------



## ColinJR (Aug 23, 2019)

vlasena said:


> Things that needs to be addressed at EOS R IMHO:
> 1. changing from manual iso to auto iso - when changing manual iso settings via touch bar or control ring it is possible to choose all ISO values, however auto iso is not selectable. to set it you need to wait ~2-3sec and than it is selectable, which is quite annoying.
> 2. if lens control ring is set to change iso values than changing direction is not possible clockwise is always decreasing iso values.
> 3. time-lapse movie interval is set to minimum of 2 seconds, would be nice to have it smaller, at least 1 second should be possible without the need to change anything in the interface.
> ...



YES. #5 kills me... Also, I would love to be able to shoot 1080p 60 when in crop mode (using an EFS lens). It makes no technical sense why you cannot currently do this.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 24, 2019)

vlasena said:


> Things that needs to be addressed at EOS R IMHO:
> 1. changing from manual iso to auto iso - when changing manual iso settings via touch bar or control ring it is possible to choose all ISO values, however auto iso is not selectable. to set it you need to wait ~2-3sec and than it is selectable, which is quite annoying.
> 2. if lens control ring is set to change iso values than changing direction is not possible clockwise is always decreasing iso values.
> 3. time-lapse movie interval is set to minimum of 2 seconds, would be nice to have it smaller, at least 1 second should be possible without the need to change anything in the interface.
> ...


Canon doesnt care.


----------



## photogreedy (Aug 24, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Why does each new lens need a firmware update?


To register the lens correction data I suppose.


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 24, 2019)

glad I didn't buy the R hoping they'd enhance things later in 'firmware' ..


----------



## Brikna (Aug 24, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> Canon doesnt care.



I'm really interested in how to send any feedback to Canon. I am a gold CPS member, Canon knows exactly what piece of equipment I own, which serial number ... Yet, I have never, ever received a questionnaire about any product, nor have they ever asked for my opinion. I don't want to think that I'm the one who matters a bit, but I really don't understand how the feedback gets to them.


----------



## lawny13 (Aug 24, 2019)

vlasena said:


> Things that needs to be addressed at EOS R IMHO:
> 1. changing from manual iso to auto iso - when changing manual iso settings via touch bar or control ring it is possible to choose all ISO values, however auto iso is not selectable. to set it you need to wait ~2-3sec and than it is selectable, which is quite annoying.
> 2. if lens control ring is set to change iso values than changing direction is not possible clockwise is always decreasing iso values.
> 3. time-lapse movie interval is set to minimum of 2 seconds, would be nice to have it smaller, at least 1 second should be possible without the need to change anything in the interface.
> ...



Add more to that list.

1. Other setting feedback during ISO change. You only really increase it decrease ISO to get a certain shutter speed. So it would be nice to see that value (changing) as you adjust ISO.

2. Currently the fastest way to do bracketing is to go to the Q menu and touch EC and use the front dial. Currently in other LV modes touching EC both dials only change EC.

3. Touch Bar tweaking in terms of more consistent behavior and sensitivity, though that might not be possible.

4. Better AF-C object recognition. It wonders sometimes. Bringing in the smaller boxes to show where the AF really is focusing on instead of just a big box would be better. It would be better for the photog to determine where the thing is really focused on. 

5. Fix the AF box size change issue. I have it set to right tap on the bar. But the size only changes in one shot mode. I have to toggle to one shot change the size then back to servo. That is just sloppy.

6. This is a major one I think. They need to expand customizability. I would like to be able to assign just ISO to a button. I would like to assign AE lock to whatever I want... currently you can only assign it to two buttons. DOF seems to only be assignable to 1 button?!?

Etc. They need to refine. And it is actually extremely simple in many cases. Which is why it isn’t really excusable.IMHO


----------



## Viggo (Aug 24, 2019)

“5. Fix the AF box size change issue. I have it set to right tap on the bar. But the size only changes in one shot mode. I have to toggle to one shot change the size then back to servo. That is just sloppy.”

Yeah, that is a bug for sure. I have it through the Q-menu so haven’t seen your finding before now, but that’s a bug.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 24, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Why does each new lens need a firmware update?


To make 3rd party RF lenses less appealing because they won't be as capable when used with the camera.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 24, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Why does each new lens need a firmware update?



It didn't need one for the RF85 f/1.2, so it's not 'each' new lens. Only half of them


----------



## Adelino (Aug 24, 2019)

snappy604 said:


> glad I didn't buy the R hoping they'd enhance things later in 'firmware' ..


That would be a bad idea for any product.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 24, 2019)

All good points. I hoped for a big improvement in the "eye" AF. With the super fast R lenses, capable of super shallow depth-of-fields, eye AF is a game changer. On the EOS R, Canon has made a flawed 1st attempt. Sony has it figured out. Steal it, Canon!


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 24, 2019)

Adelino said:


> That would be a bad idea for any product.



In general that's true but there does seem to be some moves in this direction. Fuji in particular have really improved some older cameras via firmware, Sigma and Tamron take it seriously with their lenses and both Nikon and Canon have tried to improve the autofocus on their mirrorless offerings.

Moreover technology in general now works increasingly that way. Apple in particular has a history of improving and adding to older phones via software and many people choose to buy Apple's often extremely expensive phones partly because the software improvements keep coming. I would like to see Canon go further on this. Adding an interval timer for example, something with a technology overhead approaching a cheap 1990s digital wrist watch, should be easy.

I don't know much about computers etc though so I wonder if anyone here knows enough about the chips etc in the R to know if there exists much headroom for more improvement.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 24, 2019)

mjg79 said:


> In general that's true but there does seem to be some moves in this direction.


I think he meant it in the sense of buying something being not really happy with it as is, but hoping they would turn it into what you want later with a firmware update. To that sentiment I wholeheartedly agree. Never buy a product based on what it might do in the future. Even if the manufacturer promises updates to add those features. Buy it only if you happy with what it does at the time of purchase. If it gets better later that's gravy, but promises don't always materialize...


----------



## LDS (Aug 24, 2019)

photogreedy said:


> To register the lens correction data I suppose.



Shouldn't the camera utilities be able to add them without a firmware update?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 24, 2019)

LDS said:


> Shouldn't the camera utilities be able to add them without a firmware update?



Yes, and the RF whitepaper says the RF lenses themselves hold the correction data, so DLO and correction data nothing should be needed on the RF mount. The RF85 f/1.2 didn't require an update.
This makes me think it's not about correction, but about something else, like a whitelist for dynamic IS. Or something went wrong with the lens firmware and the cameras need to do something different to correct that.


----------



## BenB (Aug 24, 2019)

I think the more obvious difference is the switch able control/focus ring. I would expect this switch would need to be handled by the camera, to know how to treat the data from the lens.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2019)

Adelino said:


> That would be a bad idea for any product.


More and more that’s the development philosophy in software. Companies are embracing “Agile” with the intent of getting working products in customers hands early and often.


----------



## Frankvalenti88 (Aug 24, 2019)

djack41 said:


> All good points. I hoped for a big improvement in the "eye" AF. With the super fast R lenses, capable of super shallow depth-of-fields, eye AF is a game changer. On the EOS R, Canon has made a flawed 1st attempt. Sony has it figured out. Steal it, Canon!


 Of course Sony figured it out. They are now on there 4th generation camera.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Aug 24, 2019)

BenB said:


> I think the more obvious difference is the switch able control/focus ring. I would expect this switch would need to be handled by the camera, to know how to treat the data from the lens.


Sounds like the most sensible and rational deduction of the reason for the update.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Aug 24, 2019)

Brikna said:


> I'm really interested in how to send any feedback to Canon. I am a gold CPS member, Canon knows exactly what piece of equipment I own, which serial number ... Yet, I have never, ever received a questionnaire about any product, nor have they ever asked for my opinion. I don't want to think that I'm the one who matters a bit, but I really don't understand how the feedback gets to them.



Just call CPS and ask to make a feature request. I made four requests within a mo th of buying the EOS R and three showed up in the last firmware update.

They don’t need to contact you, enough people contact them. I’m not the only person asking for changes.

Also, to those hoping for more from this update, keep waiting... At launch there were rumours of a firmware update with added functionality. The first firmware update had none of the expected upgrades. But the next one did.

Call me optimistic, but I believe there’s more to come. And, at the price I paid for the EOS R, I am very pleased with the performance.


----------



## Uneternal (Aug 25, 2019)

I'm so disappointed with this firmware. Why would you even bother releasing a FW with ONE change when there are so many little things that need to be addressed.

- Intervalometer
- Error and goes into full freeze with certain adapted third party lenses that worked on EF
- An option to put switching between EVF and screen on the touch bar
- etc.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 25, 2019)

Uneternal said:


> I'm so disappointed with this firmware. Why would you even bother releasing a FW with ONE change when there are so many little things that need to be addressed.
> 
> - Intervalometer
> - Error and goes into full freeze with certain adapted third party lenses that worked on EF
> ...


The reason being that the 24-240 already came out and people are getting it NOW. Wouldn’t you be seriously bummed if your new long awaited lens wouldn’t work? The rest of the fixes come later, along with the PTP-fix etc.


----------



## LDS (Aug 25, 2019)

BenB said:


> I think the more obvious difference is the switch able control/focus ring. I would expect this switch would need to be handled by the camera, to know how to treat the data from the lens.



Strange design, if the camera has to know the switch position, and the electronics in the lens does nothing but sending it along the data about the ring position. It looks to me the RF protocol has already ways to know if the data comes from a focus ring or settings ring - and the lens electronics should take care of it.

It doesn't bode well if Canon can add "planned obsolescence" into cameras this way.


----------



## BenB (Aug 25, 2019)

LDS said:


> Strange design, if the camera has to know the switch position, and the electronics in the lens does nothing but sending it along the data about the ring position. It looks to me the RF protocol has already ways to know if the data comes from a focus ring or settings ring - and the lens electronics should take care of it.
> 
> It doesn't bode well if Canon can add "planned obsolescence" into cameras this way.



Depends how they are handling the data and how much flexibility the want in the future.

Maybe they want to allow the switch to be customised to something other than focus and control ring? If it's all in the lens and the body has no idea the switch is even there.

Could be handy to have some different options on this switch as well. Who knows what they have planned.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Aug 26, 2019)

*If I didn't install firmware update 1.2 yet, will firmware 1.3 bypass and also provide what was in 1.2 also?*


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 26, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> *If I didn't install firmware update 1.2 yet, will firmware 1.3 bypass and also provide what was in 1.2 also?*



AFAICT Canon only publishes full firmware files, so that should work. With Canon being Canon you will get an error message before it does anything if that isn't that case.


----------



## John Baker (Aug 26, 2019)

Why is it Sony can do major software upgrades that significantly improves many features as well as introduces new options in their cameras. While the R has lots of minor things that are poorly implemented and could be made to work and we get a simple lens addition – come on guys, you can and need do far better than this…


----------



## Thanhha (Aug 26, 2019)

mjg79 said:


> In general that's true but there does seem to be some moves in this direction. Fuji in particular have really improved some older cameras via firmware, Sigma and Tamron take it seriously with their lenses and both Nikon and Canon have tried to improve the autofocus on their mirrorless offerings.
> 
> Moreover technology in general now works increasingly that way. Apple in particular has a history of improving and adding to older phones via software and many people choose to buy Apple's often extremely expensive phones partly because the software improvements keep coming. I would like to see Canon go further on this. Adding an interval timer for example, something with a technology overhead approaching a cheap 1990s digital wrist watch, should be easy.
> 
> I don't know much about computers etc though so I wonder if anyone here knows enough about the chips etc in the R to know if there exists much headroom for more improvement.


I believe Fuji did their trick: by making a very potential camera but lock up some features at the time of release. Only then they can make "improvement" by unlock those features via new firmwares.


----------



## jvillain (Aug 26, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> More and more that’s the development philosophy in software. Companies are embracing “Agile” with the intent of getting working products in customers hands early and often.



Nothing about that sounds like Canon of the last few years. They really just don't care much any more.



John Baker said:


> Why is it Sony can do major software upgrades that significantly improves many features as well as introduces new options in their cameras. While the R has lots of minor things that are poorly implemented and could be made to work and we get a simple lens addition – come on guys, you can and need do far better than this…



Sony and the other manufacturers still care about grabbing market share. Canon? Not so much.

Canon Releases Interim Financial Report, Sales Plummeted By 10%








Canon Releases Interim Financial Report, Sales Plummeted By 10%


Canon released an interim financial report, covering the period from January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019. Things don't look good for Canon




www.canonwatch.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2019)

jvillain said:


> Sony and the other manufacturers still care about grabbing market share. Canon? Not so much.


Sure, the other manufacturers care about grabbing market share. They’re completely failing to do it effectively, but they care about it. Meanwhile, Canon’s market domination continues.



jvillain said:


> Canon Releases Interim Financial Report, Sales Plummeted By 10%


Meanwhile, the Sony division that includes digital cameras dropped by 15%, Nikon’s dropped by 12%, Fuji’s dropped by 15%, and Olympus’ dropped by 25%. I’m sorry, but when you state that Canon plummeted by 10%, what was your point again? Other than demonstrating that you’re clueless about this market, I mean. Yeah, that’s what I thought.


----------



## Cryhavoc (Aug 26, 2019)

Uneternal said:


> I'm so disappointed with this firmware. Why would you even bother releasing a FW with ONE change when there are so many little things that need to be addressed.
> 
> - Intervalometer
> - Error and goes into full freeze with certain adapted third party lenses that worked on EF
> ...



Not sure I've ever seen Canon release a firmware fix to address a third party lens. I have seen Tamron and Sigma release firmware updates to fix issue with newer Canon Camera's.

I don't think Canon is in the business of fixing third party lens compatibility.
Regarding Intervalometer. I have that in my remote. Don't need it in my Eos R, but wouldn't complain if they added it in.
Still would be a battery suck though, especially for long interval shooting.


----------



## Freddell (Sep 6, 2019)

If anyone installed it was it working exactly as before is did it introduce any other behavior?


----------



## Cryhavoc (Sep 6, 2019)

Freddell said:


> If anyone installed it was it working exactly as before is did it introduce any other behavior?



1.3 works fine. No issues.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 6, 2019)

Freddell said:


> If anyone installed it was it working exactly as before is did it introduce any other behavior?


I see no changes. Apparently it was just lens info for the 24-240 lens.


----------



## Cryhavoc (Sep 10, 2019)

I have noticed 1 thing since adding ver 1.3 ( i do not know if its because of 1.3)..

With a third party battery, I can not charge it via USB
With a genuine Canon battery, usb charging from my pc still works.

I do not, for 100%, know if third party battery charging worked before 1.3 to be quite honest.
3rd party packs have been stand by use for me, where typically the Canon packs are installed, BUT I do know now for 100% certainty, that I cannot charge a power2000 LP-E6N pack via USB, whereas I can charge a Canon LP-E6N.

Someone with a third party pack and still on ver 1.2 would need to check ver 1.2 usb charging


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 10, 2019)

Cryhavoc said:


> I have noticed 1 thing since adding ver 1.3 ( i do not know if its because of 1.3)..
> 
> With a third party battery, I can not charge it via USB
> With a genuine Canon battery, usb charging from my pc still works.
> ...



I rented an R a while ago and it came with 3rd party batteries and it wouldn't charge with 1.1 nor would it charge after updating to 1.2.


----------



## Cryhavoc (Sep 10, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I rented an R a while ago and it came with 3rd party batteries and it wouldn't charge with 1.1 nor would it charge after updating to 1.2.



Ok thanks. Confirmed then. Only OEM packs will charge via a computers usb-c port


----------

