Review: Canon EOS R by DPReview

[Jethro]

This clearly wasn't designed as a primary camera for professional photographers, so it's a bit unfair to review it as if it were.

There's a fair bit of that going around.

 

[4fun]

How is the M50 a more capable camera than the M5 (just curious)?

good factual specs comparison here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=24445

or here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/canon-eos-m5-vs-m50/

for me main advantage of M50 vs M5/M6 is the better AF system. More AF points over more of the frame and well-working Eye Detect/Tracking AF thanks to more processing power (Digic 8).

i dont really mention 4k video in M50 (nerfed in various ways) since i am never recording video and dont have the slightest interest doing so - i would really prefer a "pure stills" version of any camera.

Useful also for stills - especially in tripod use - is the "really-right, fully articulated" screen on M50 (vs. M5's downward tilt-flip which is the worst of all possible implementations seen so far).

Best of all: M50 brings all of the goodness in a noticably smaller/lighter body at a really decent price.

Only downside of M50 is due to Canon's decision to marketing-nerf it by using the old, whimpy LP-E12 battery (as in the very 1st gen EOS M!) vs. M5/M6 using a newer, higher capacity and only slightly larger LP-E17 (yes, it could have been fit inside the M50 body size-wise, it's less than 1mm thicker).

M5 sales must have really stalled ever since the M50 appeared. There are massive discounts / special offers for M5 available, sometimes even below M50 price these days. I'd still take M50.

Since its launch M50 plus EF-M lens lineup (much hated by many review sites and snobbish mirrorslapper owners with EF L and Zeiss glass) deliver maximum bang for buck of any mirrorless crop-sensor system (for stills) in the entire market and it has not been surpassed to this day. Unfortunately it took Canon almost 10 years and 5 generations of cameras until they finally came up with it.

let's hope, they will be quicker with EOS R system. I really would like to get an FF-sensored "EOS R50" and some matching, compact, decent and well-affordable RF lenses with it rather than f/1.2 primes and f/2 zooms without IS.

Today!

 

[4fun]

This clearly wasn't designed as a primary camera for professional photographers, so it's a bit unfair to review it as if it were.

Not unfair. Canon has not made this NOT clear. Entirely their fault. They chose to bring a "mirrorfree 6D III" with an old, re-used sensor, weirdo UI, severley nerfed 4k video, pedestrian fps/AF tracking and no IBIS ... at a price tag much higher than 6D-class cameras and also higher than better-specced competitive products (A7 III, Z6). Furthermore, Canon did not communicate their product strategy re. DSLRs and EOS R line at all. Would they publish a clear roadmap, where everbody interested can not only see for when different products are scheduled but also what market segment they are targeted at. In light of those decisions and their refusal to communicate, Canon has fully deserved the flak they are getting for this.

That said: no, EOS R ain't all bad. Yes, it can be used also by pro's and semi-pro's ... and it is. BUT ... for its price tag and for a late 2018 FF MILC it is underspecced. Or other way round: for its specs it is overpriced.

At say USD / € 1799 it would have been clearly positioned ["6D class"], could not be criticized as much given lower price than higher specced competitor models and - most importantly it would be selling like hotcakes - provided there were also a few decent, affordable RF lenses around, not mainly "super-premium pink unicorns". Eg. Non-L lenses like a RF 24-85/4.0 IS STM at € 599 and an RF 50/1.8 at € 199 ... but Canon believes they can go "all premium price" for anything FF. ofc they can, but they bear the consequences: much lower unit volume and they will have to live with fully justified criticism if their premium-priced products are not fully on par with in terms of specs and/or performance and functionality.

 

[David Hull]

good factual specs comparison here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=24445

or here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/canon-eos-m5-vs-m50/

for me main advantage of M50 vs M5/M6 is the better AF system. More AF points over more of the frame and well-working Eye Detect/Tracking AF thanks to more processing power (Digic 8).

i dont really mention 4k video in M50 (nerfed in various ways) since i am never recording video and dont have the slightest interest doing so - i would really prefer a "pure stills" version of any camera.

Useful also for stills - especially in tripod use - is the "really-right, fully articulated" screen on M50 (vs. M5's downward tilt-flip which is the worst of all possible implementations seen so far).

Best of all: M50 brings all of the goodness in a noticably smaller/lighter body at a really decent price.

Only downside of M50 is due to Canon's decision to marketing-nerf it by using the old, whimpy LP-E12 battery (as in the very 1st gen EOS M!) vs. M5/M6 using a newer, higher capacity and only slightly larger LP-E17 (yes, it could have been fit inside the M50 body size-wise, it's less than 1mm thicker).

M5 sales must have really stalled ever since the M50 appeared. There are massive discounts / special offers for M5 available, sometimes even below M50 price these days. I'd still take M50.

Since its launch M50 plus EF-M lens lineup (much hated by many review sites and snobbish mirrorslapper owners with EF L and Zeiss glass) deliver maximum bang for buck of any mirrorless crop-sensor system (for stills) in the entire market and it has not been surpassed to this day. Unfortunately it took Canon almost 10 years and 5 generations of cameras until they finally came up with it.

let's hope, they will be quicker with EOS R system. I really would like to get an FF-sensored "EOS R50" and some matching, compact, decent and well-affordable RF lenses with it rather than f/1.2 primes and f/2 zooms without IS.

Today!

Thanks.

 

[Ozarker]

My 2 cents asto why Canon doesn't include IBIS: Money.

IBIS = every lens now has stabilization. Works almost as well as in lens IS when shooting static subjects to stabilize the camera shake of the photographer. Does not stabilize as well when trying to stabilize a panning shot, such as a moving car.

In Lens = Heavier lens, but better sports and moving subject image stabilization options. If combined with IBIS you might achieve an extra 1/2 stop over either of them alone.


My theory on why Canon doesn't have it simply comes down to money. Canon charges a premium for IS and gets it. If they build in IS, they will lose quite a bit of people willing to pay a premium for IS on non sports lenses (the IS version of the 70-200 will probably still sell if used for sports, the hand held portrait shooter might opt to use IBIS and buy the lower cost version).

There are many reasons for not having IBIS just as there are reasons for having it. IBIS is not the Holy Grail many make it out to be. BTW: IS is not a big deal on sports lenses like the 70-200 when used for sports. In fact, best to have IS off in that case. It is when used as a portrait lens and for other static subjects that IS is important. Same with IBIS. In my experience IBIS works well at short focal lengths. Get out to 400mm? Not good.

"And Now Panasonic Explains What’s Not so Good with IBIS..."


https://www.fujirumors.com/now-pana...is-looking-forward-fujifilm-x-h1-ibis-anyway/

"At the end, OIS or IBIS, if you really want the ultimate and very best image quality possible, then any form of in camera or lens stabilisation has to be avoided whenever possible."

 

[YuengLinger]

There are many reasons for not having IBIS just as there are reasons for having it. IBIS is not the Holy Grail many make it out to be. BTW: IS is not a big deal on sports lenses like the 70-200 when used for sports. In fact, best to have IS off in that case. It is when used as a portrait lens and for other static subjects that IS is important. Same with IBIS. In my experience IBIS works well at short focal lengths. Get out to 400mm? Not good.

"And Now Panasonic Explains What’s Not so Good with IBIS..."


https://www.fujirumors.com/now-pana...is-looking-forward-fujifilm-x-h1-ibis-anyway/

"At the end, OIS or IBIS, if you really want the ultimate and very best image quality possible, then any form of in camera or lens stabilisation has to be avoided whenever possible."

Thought provoking link. But I'd still like IBIS for primes and zooms in the 24-135mm range. IS improves IQ significantly when it virtually eliminates camera shake--in many shooting situations.

If it's technologically feasible, the engineers will sort it.

As for IS on the 70 to 200 or the 100 to 400, action photography isn't purely 100% fluid motion in bright light. Certainly IS helps reduce camera shake in many situations beyond portrait photography. Of course it can't stop subject blur, but it can help prevent a combination of subject blur and camera shake. Consider panning mode on Canon supertelephoto lenses.

In some situations, you are right, it doesn't help. But it is another nice tool to have in the kit bag.

Frankly I am surprised that in 2018 image stabilization is still a controversial topic!

 

[4fun]

Frankly I am surprised that in 2018 image stabilization is still a controversial topic!

exactly!

It is not "the one or the other" any longer in late 2018. IBIS and IS complement each other. Actually IBIS should be the base line in every camera, so we get some degree of stabilization even when using non-IS lenses. Of course with a switch so users can turn it off whenever desired.

There is no valid reason why IBIS should not be in every camera in late 2018. By now all "innovative manufacturers" have figured out how to make IBIS and in-lens stabilization (if present) work together for even better effect. In terms of cost/economics I just say: if they can put (4k) video capture into each and every camera body, IBIS should go in even more so, since it is a lot more useful for the majority of stills shooters who buy all these cameras.

 

[Talys]

exactly!

It is not "the one or the other" any longer in late 2018. IBIS and IS complement each other. Actually IBIS should be the base line in every camera, so we get some degree of stabilization even when using non-IS lenses. Of course with a switch so users can turn it off whenever desired.

There is no valid reason why IBIS should not be in every camera in late 2018. By now all "innovative manufacturers" have figured out how to make IBIS and in-lens stabilization (if present) work together for even better effect. In terms of cost/economics I just say: if they can put (4k) video capture into each and every camera body, IBIS should go in even more so, since it is a lot more useful for the majority of stills shooters who buy all these cameras.

Try to use an 85mm lens at a lower shutter speed on a Sony with:

1. All image stabilization off
2. Just IBIS
3. Just in-lens IS.
4. Both in-lens and in-body image stabilization on

The first 2 are quite similar and so are the last two.

This is why IBIS doesn't really excite me. Yes, it's a nice extra bonus. But it's for me, it's like the difference between 9fps and 11 fps and 14 fps. or 11 and 13 steps of DR. In real terms, in 2018-2019, you need to decide whether IBIS is more important to you or DPAF. You can't have both.

Anyways, at the end of the day, if you're getting blurry images, increase your shutter speed.

 

[4fun]

Try to use an 85mm lens at a lower shutter speed on a Sony with:

1. All image stabilization off
2. Just IBIS
3. Just in-lens IS.
4. Both in-lens and in-body image stabilization on

The first 2 are quite similar and so are the last two.

This is why IBIS doesn't really excite me. Yes, it's a nice extra bonus. But it's for me, it's like the difference between 9fps and 11 fps and 14 fps. or 11 and 13 steps of DR. In real terms, in 2018-2019, you need to decide whether IBIS is more important to you or DPAF. You can't have both.

we should not have to make this choice. i'd rather want to choose between IBIS and video capture.
DPAF does not preclude IBIS technically. And poor implementation in some Sony camera should not be indicative for what innovative Canon could do. ;-)

even if IBIS only yields 1 stop, it would be very welcome in difficult situations, when faster shutter speed means higher ISO and its cranjed up to 3200 or 6400 already.

again, no valid excuse for not including IBIS in Canon cameras.

 

[Ozarker]

Try to use an 85mm lens at a lower shutter speed on a Sony with:

1. All image stabilization off
2. Just IBIS
3. Just in-lens IS.
4. Both in-lens and in-body image stabilization on

The first 2 are quite similar and so are the last two.

This is why IBIS doesn't really excite me. Yes, it's a nice extra bonus. But it's for me, it's like the difference between 9fps and 11 fps and 14 fps. or 11 and 13 steps of DR. In real terms, in 2018-2019, you need to decide whether IBIS is more important to you or DPAF. You can't have both.

Anyways, at the end of the day, if you're getting blurry images, increase your shutter speed.

It seems whatever "feature" a camera company "leaves out" there are always people who scream there is no reason to have left it out. Um, yes there is and are. Turns out IBIS causes heat and noise problems. Who knew? hahaha Turns out just turning it off doesn't help image quality either.

Now somebody who's been screaming the praises of Sony IBIS now says Sony poorly implemented the tech. It never ends.

 

[bhf3737]

exactly!

It is not "the one or the other" any longer in late 2018. IBIS and IS complement each other. Actually IBIS should be the base line in every camera, so we get some degree of stabilization even when using non-IS lenses. Of course with a switch so users can turn it off whenever desired.

There is no valid reason why IBIS should not be in every camera in late 2018. By now all "innovative manufacturers" have figured out how to make IBIS and in-lens stabilization (if present) work together for even better effect. In terms of cost/economics I just say: if they can put (4k) video capture into each and every camera body, IBIS should go in even more so, since it is a lot more useful for the majority of stills shooters who buy all these cameras.

Companies spend a lot of R&D funds and resources to put a feature in a product for good reason.
With due respect, "I want it and later If I don't need it I'll switch it off" is laughable in product development!

I have read/watched several reviews about IBIS and studied the technology.
But, unfortunately most of the arguments in reviews are like yours, saying everyone in the neighborhood has it, so do I ...
There are very few cases that actually question the effectiveness of IBIS.
In my search, so far, I have not found any convincing reason/evidence that IBIS is needed and is useful in still photography.
But I will be happy to find evidence that may overturn this. Instead of repeating the same boring buzz, could you please provide some evidence or give a link to a review that shows IBIS worked and no-IBIS failed, i.e., there is a significant difference (statistically speaking) between pictures taken with IBIS and no-IBIS.
Perhaps you could mention a real use-case and post side-by-side pictures with the setup info to backup your argument.
In this way we can settle the issue for good.

 

[padam]

Anyways, at the end of the day, if you're getting blurry images, increase your shutter speed.

Until images shot at 6400 ISO are not anywhere close to being identical compared to let's say 800 ISO, this argument is just not valid. This is actually similar to a jump in several generations of sensor technology improvements. It is one of the main selling feature of the m43 system and there is no reason why it shouldn't appear elsewhere as well (arguably making the m43 less attractive than it was).

If one uses the fully articulating screen, the suppression of the camera shake is even more important. Same with the upcoming higher resolution sensors paired to the new optics.
Again, it's not an essential feature and it introduces another possible failure and let's be honest, no one really expected it to be included in the first iteration in Canon's world.
But the RF platform is designed with this in mind as well (some of the 'yet unused' contacts on the mount could be there for combining lens and sensor IS, probably a lot more effectively than with 'legacy' EF lenses) - and I suspect the attitude will suddenly change towards it when the second generation (finally) comes out and it turns out to be a major improvement both for photo and video.

 

[cpreston]

On the other hand, video as well as stills are important to ME and I passed on buying an R, even though I have funds saved up for a new camera.
I think the R handles really well, its lenses are fantastic and the still image quality is fantastic, but the video is poor compared to the competition.
I saw a side by side comparison of the R's video compared to the Fuji XT-3m Nikon Z7, Sony A7 III etc., and the video is very soft in comparison.
Now I've been a Canon shooter since 1968 (when I got my first new Canon SLR), but I'm seriously considering something else for my next camera purchase unless Canon do something about their soft video quality.
I'm not interested in 4K so much, but even their 1080 is very soft, and I want an improvement in video from my 5D3, 70D and M5, which unfortunately the R doesn't do.

A couple things after having actually tested the video on the EOS R. Unlike some previous Canon cameras, the Canon does well with both in camera and post sharpening. Aliasing and noise artifacts aren't much of a problem. It also does well with noise reduction in camera.

In camera digital stabilization is bad.

The crop mode uses the 4K image processing to create a much more detailed image than the FHD. The FHD looks quite a bit like the 5D IV, which isn't unusable actually. But the cropped 1080p looks like the C100/300 line. But you lose 60p.

Honestly, the EOS-R is a great video camera if you don't want 60p and you want to use crop frame lenses.

 

[AlanF]

Companies spend a lot of R&D funds and resources to put a feature in a product for good reason.
With due respect, "I want it and later If I don't need it I'll switch it off" is laughable in product development!

I have read/watched several reviews about IBIS and studied the technology.
But, unfortunately most of the arguments in reviews are like yours, saying everyone in the neighborhood has it, so do I ...
There are very few cases that actually question the effectiveness of IBIS.
In my search, so far, I have not found any convincing reason/evidence that IBIS is needed and is useful in still photography.
But I will be happy to find evidence that may overturn this. Instead of repeating the same boring buzz, could you please provide some evidence or give a link to a review that shows IBIS worked and no-IBIS failed, i.e., there is a significant difference (statistically speaking) between pictures taken with IBIS and no-IBIS.
Perhaps you could mention a real use-case and post side-by-side pictures with the setup info to backup your argument.
In this way we can settle the issue for good.

Lenstip has measured the IS in the Pana-Leica 200mm to be worth 4.3 ev, which increases to 5.5 ev when synced with IBIS in the DMC-G9.
https://www.lenstip.com/521.3-Lens_...S._Build_quality_and_image_stabilization.html
Olympus claims a similar synergy for their 300mm f/4.

 

[4fun]

sure, IBIS has limitations. It does not replace using a tripod in many situations. That's when you may want to turn it off, btw.

but all tests and reviews show that IBIS does work and is effective in many real life situations. i am happy with any help i can get in low light (static scene) to keep ISO lower by one, two or three EV and with a shutter speed i can handhold.

if EOS R were a really low-price entry level cam, Canon might be forgiven. but more expensive than competition lack of IBIS is a serious flaw. especially when launching new hi-end RF lenses without IS at the same time.

 

[bhf3737]

Lenstip has measured the IS in the Pana-Leica 200mm to be worth 4.3 ev, which increases to 5.5 ev when synced with IBIS in the DMC-G9.
https://www.lenstip.com/521.3-Lens_...S._Build_quality_and_image_stabilization.html
Olympus claims a similar synergy for their 300mm f/4.

Thanks for the link. I have seen this before and It is quite interesting on itself. Perhaps it mainly shows the effectiveness of in lens stabilization. But I am looking for an experiment reporting similar effects for a lens without IS mounted on a body with IBIS while turning the IBIS on and off.

 

[Talys]

we should not have to make this choice. i'd rather want to choose between IBIS and video capture.
DPAF does not preclude IBIS technically. And poor implementation in some Sony camera should not be indicative for what innovative Canon could do. ;-)

even if IBIS only yields 1 stop, it would be very welcome in difficult situations, when faster shutter speed means higher ISO and its cranjed up to 3200 or 6400 already.

again, no valid excuse for not including IBIS in Canon cameras.

This basically comes down to the opinion that manufacturer A has feature 1 you like , manufacturer B has feature 2 you like, and manufacturer C has feature 3 you like. Instead of choosing between them, what you want is one of those manufacturers to have features 1, 2 and 3, so that you don't have to make a choice.

Yes, I get it: some of us want 0-60 in 4 seconds and amazing fuel efficiency and lots of range, too. While we're at it, please also make it the least expensive option. Why can't manufacturers make it easy for us, and make one choice the most obvious and best one? Why

Because it actually is a competitive marketplace, each manufacturer has constraints, including profitability, costs, engineering timelines, and intellectual property rights. If Canon could give you a camera with IBIS, 8k video, 30fps, 15 steps of DR and 50 megapixels, all for just $2,000 don't you think they would? If Sony could add DPAF and offer a 200-400+TC, wouldn't they?

If there isn't anything that's perfect, just buy what works best for now; in 5 years, all the mirrorless options be a lot better; in 10 years, it will be mature and all the manufacturers will have offerings that are very same-y for both price and features, with each year's model being very similar to the last's. And then you know what will happen? Some company will become better at making them cheaper, and slowly drive some smaller competitors out of business. It's a movie we've seen.

No need to rush it... this is one of those few times in photography where we get to see some real differentiation between different manufacturers, at least for a little while. Relish it!

 

[dak723]

I'm not sure that's true. I think it's just the case that other brands have been releasing more compelling products over the past few years. The 5DIV, 6DII, M50 and EOS R have all had major drawbacks when compared with similarly priced cameras. All are okay cameras but the lack of features for the price is something that can't be ignored. The 5DIV is D850/A7RIII money, the 6DII is A7III money and so on. Again, okay cameras but definitely not competitive.

Just curious how many of the competitors you have tried?

Does color science count? Do ergonomics count? Does the usability of a touch screen count? Does a swivel screen count? Does reliability count?

Watched Dustin Abbot's fine review yesterday. Paraphrasing from memory, but Dustin felt that the R - compared to the competition - has the best color, the best EVF, the fastest AF, the best touch screen, the best grip and ergonomics and the best (because it's the only) swivel screen. I guess being the best in all of those categories just doesn't matter to some folks - which is OK. But those things do matter to some folks, which may indeed make the R quite competitive.

 

[4fun]

No need to rush it... this is one of those few times in photography where we get to see some real differentiation between different manufacturers, at least for a little while. Relish it!

not really. For example: ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways and is only utilized (in earnest) by a small minority of purchasers.

Or ... up to now NONE of the makers offers a really compact FF MILC ... why is there no FF MILC only slightly larger than Sony RX-1R II [or A7 1st gen] - with a lens mount up front in lieu of a Zeiss-branded 35mm fixed lens and a decent, compact battery [eg like Fuji's NP-W126S with 9 WHrs] ... ? And at an affordable price instead of "super-premium" ...

 

[3kramd5]

ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways

Interesting. Other than having a red button I’ve never pressed and some menu items, I can’t immediately think of any negative impacts having video capability brings, especially to performance. Maybe without they could use slightly cheaper processors, but that would be a cost impact.