Review: Canon EOS R by DPReview

[4fun]

Oly Pen .. useless retro concept from the start. feeling nostalgic those Oly execs should have gone and create a modern day, digital version 2.0 of the OM system: FF sensor, full capability, performance, functionality, user interface .., in the smallest possible bodies at most affordable prices. boom, they'd had a true winner. Instead they went all in with their micro midget FT sensor and retro styled stuff ... and are now at the brink of extinction as far as regular imaging gear goes. Even Pana has left them for a stint in Leica L La La Land.

Stupid, Oly. bye bye.

 

[padam]

Camera shops I've chatted with have said that when it comes to Mirrorless FF sales today, it's Sony > Canon > Nikon, and each step isn't particularly close. I think Nikon has to do more to be competitive in the mirrorless space, particularly since its FTZ adapted lenses aren't anything to write home about. The lowest hanging fruit is DSLR owners who buy a mirrorless body, but that's not going to happen if adapted lenses don't work about as well as they did on their DSLR bodies.

If I were in the US would consider choosing the Nikon Z6, it just seems like a better platform for video and to use my vintage lenses with, but the current EU (and Japanese) pricing is just ridiculous, the Canon can be had for 1860 Euros now grey market with the EF adapter included or 2600 Euros with the kit lens and adapter, still a little bit too much (I think it may come down further after the initial excitement bogs down and its issues get more into focus), but way, way less overall. I'm just worried about a few things that people are reporting, and I want to try it out too see to those first, the best tactic is probably to chill out and and not rush it as the price won't increase. The A7SIII might also be a strong camera, although it will cost quite a bit more.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Oly Pen .. useless retro concept from the start. feeling nostalgic those Oly execs should have gone and create a modern day, digital version 2.0 of the OM system: FF sensor, full capability, performance, functionality, user interface .., in the smallest possible bodies at most affordable prices. boom, they'd had a true winner. Instead they went all in with their micro midget FT sensor and retro styled stuff ... and are now at the brink of extinction as far as regular imaging gear goes. Even Pana has left them for a stint in Leica L La La Land.

Stupid, Oly. bye bye.

This is well off topic but even so I feel compelled to respond.
Before I bought my 5D mk4 I took a serious look at some of the leading mirrorless products that were available at the time, including cameras from Sony, Fuji and Olympus. Of the products I tested the only one that I would seriously consider buying is the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II because it is the only camera that offers a realistic alternative to a DSLR for sports and action shooting. It is weather sealed, comfortable to hold even without a monopod or tripod, 15 fps is respectable, I can live with the idea of a small 20 megapixel sensor and the camera with a telephoto lens mounted is significantly smaller and lighter than the DSLR equivalent. The lens I tried was the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm f4. It was accurate and responsive and the total weight is only 1.85Kg compared to say a Canon 1DXii with a 600mm F4 lens which is nearly 3.5Kg heavier.
There have been a lot of comments about the new Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras recently, and the Sony A7 or A9 series are attractive options, but in practice they offer few advantages over the existing range of DSLRs. They still require a large, heavy lens to be used due to the full frame sensor so what is the point? The Olympus uses a much smaller sensor so the lenses can be much smaller, and although I would not consider it for studio work it makes a great alternative for sports shooting where you need to be as mobile as possible.

 

[4fun]

There have been a lot of comments about the new Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras recently, and the Sony A7 or A9 series are attractive options, but in practice they offer few advantages over the existing range of DSLRs. They still require a large, heavy lens to be used due to the full frame sensor so what is the point? The Olympus uses a much smaller sensor so the lenses can be much smaller, and although I would not consider it for studio work it makes a great alternative for sports shooting where you need to be as mobile as possible.

Haven't we arrived at a point, were there is no more real "reach advantage" for smaller sensors ... IQ from FF cropped in post better than from small sensor?

 

[Ozarker]

ah, yes thanks for pointing out those products, that are all totally irrelevant on the market because they miss the mark by a mile.

common denominator is "high price/poor usability/performance".
But, some of them could have been really interesting, had they been done "really right".

most of us are aware of the glaring problems the listed cameras gave. we avoid the like cancer because of those problems, not because their "lack of video recording".

done right, Nikon Df for example could have been a blockbuster FF camera. it was let down by its absurd retro approach, totally botched UI and most importantly the absurdly high price relative to its performance/functionality. why oh why did Nikon not repeat their smash hit D3/D700 combo approach and stick that same nice D4 sensor into a "regular UI, compact D710 body and price it sensibly at about 2 grand? they'd have sold tons of it (back in the day in 2013, not any longer end of 2018). but .. stupid Nikon. it had to be a brilliant teaser campaign followed by a totally overpriced, disfunctional and ugly retro hipster knurled mono-functional metal knobs turd. "the Fuji of Nikon". thanks, but no thanks. i bet the Nikon Df fail cost them dearly. well deserved.

*sigh* You said ALL mfgs put video in their cameras. You were wrong. Don't know what your definition of relevance is, but the fact remains that these cameras ARE on the market and SOMEBODY buys them.

Frankly, if I had the money, I might consider the Nikon. I happen to think the retro look is cool. Guess what? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. In fact, that's why I bought my Olympus over one of Canon's APSC cameras and the M. I got it specifically because of it's retro look. The DF has been around for 5 years or so.

Anyway, you completely miss the point of my post. *sigh*

 

[4fun]

Anyway, you completely miss the point of my post. *sigh*

don't think so. As usual, you are ALL semantics and list a handful of mostly outdated oddball digital cameras sans video recording. So, yes you are right, they exist. Although, like most "atypical examples to the contrary" they rather prove my statement.

But since semantics are so important to you, I shall amend my earlier statement as follows:

"ALL relevant stills camera makers [those with more than 10% camera camera market share; Sigma, Oly and Leica leave the room] put freaking video recording into ALL of their current (* stills interchangeable lens cameras.

(* NO, Nikon Df from 2013 is NOT to be considered current any longer, even if there are still a few factory-new ones collecting dust on some shop shelves or in dark warehouses.

As if ALL of us were hybrid users, when in reality only a small fraction are capturing both stills and video in any meaningful way. (**

(** NO, wobbly 20sec cat video clips that might as well be taken with any cameraphone do not count here.

 

[Ozarker]

don't think so. As usual, you are ALL semantics and list a handful of mostly outdated oddball digital cameras sans video recording. So, yes you are right, they exist. Although, like most "atypical examples to the contrary" they rather prove my statement.

But since semantics are so important to you, I shall amend my earlier statement as follows:

"ALL relevant stills camera makers [those with more than 10% camera camera market share; Sigma, Oly and Leica leave the room] put freaking video recording into ALL of their current (* stills interchangeable lens cameras.

(* NO, Nikon Df from 2013 is NOT to be considered current any longer, even if there are still a few factory-new ones collecting dust on some shop shelves or in dark warehouses.

As if ALL of us were hybrid users, when in reality only a small fraction are capturing both stills and video in any meaningful way. (**

(** NO, wobbly 20sec cat video clips that might as well be taken with any cameraphone do not count here.

The point is that you have a propensity to make up "facts". That isn't semantics at all. Them's the facts, Jack.

So now the question: When Sony falls below 10% market share will Sony then also be irrelevant? Like you say Sigma, Olympus, and Leica are? Or will Sony still be relevant because Sony is useful to your rants? Because, you know, in 2017 Sony was at 13.3% market share for system cameras. With Canon and Nikon now getting into the mirrorless game... Sony may have to leave the room.

https://petapixel.com/2018/08/01/sony-has-a-13-3-market-share-of-the-system-camera-market/

BTW: Olympus has the top spot in the mirrorless camera market, beating Sony, Nikon, and Canon wit 27.7%. Hardly Irrelevant. Semantics indeed.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/09666...canon-dominates-dslrs-tops-sony-in-mirrorless (Japanese market)

Now, move the goal posts again.
(relevant = semantics)

 

[4fun]

So now the question: When Sony falls below 10% market share will Sony then also be irrelevant? Like you say Sigma, Olympus, and Leica are? Or will Sony still be relevant because Sony is useful to your rants? Because, you know, in 2017 Sony was at 13.3% market share for system cameras. With Canon and Nikon now getting into the mirrorless game... Sony may have to leave the room.
https://petapixel.com/2018/08/01/sony-has-a-13-3-market-share-of-the-system-camera-market/

good point. Is this global market or Japan only? But less than 10% market share while 2 other companies have combined 75% ... is not very relevant in my book.


btw: Personally I don't care about Sony. They once put a root kit on my PC by means of an honestly purchased music CD. It took me half a day to get rid of the malware. Ever since I am totally boycotting them. Only thing I like about Sony is that they have forced Canon (and Nikon) to cave in and finally also offer mirrorfree cameras, including ones with FF sensor.

 

[Ozarker]

good point. Is this global market or Japan only? But less than 10% market share while 2 other companies have combined 75% ... is not very relevant in my book.


btw: Personally I don't care about Sony. They once put a root kit on my PC by means of an honestly purchased music CD. It took me half a day to get rid of the malware. Ever since I am totally boycotting them. Only thing I like about Sony is that they have forced Canon (and Nikon) to cave in and finally also offer mirrorfree cameras, including ones with FF sensor.

So with 2 companies owning 75% market share... there are no other relevant companies. One of these two companies makes a stills only DSLR. Nikon.

As far as Sony forcing Nikon and Canon to cave... I don't believe that. I think both were into development anyway. However, neither of us has any possible way of knowing that. Conjecture and inferences aren't necessarily facts. I wish I could know Nikon's sales of the DF. There are many groups of owners that love them.

 

[dak723]

Haven't we arrived at a point, were there is no more real "reach advantage" for smaller sensors ... IQ from FF cropped in post better than from small sensor?

You would need an 80 Mp FF camera to get the same pixels on target as the the 20 MP Olympus, so no, we have not arrived at that point.
And the second advantage when using a crop camera in reach advatage situations, is that is much easier to frame your composition when using the entire viewfinder. Trying to anticipate the cropped area of a FF sensor is not very easy and often leads to unbalanced compositions, or compositions with unintended objects at the edges or object being cut off and leading the eye out of the frame.

 

[3kramd5]

And the second advantage when using a crop camera in reach advatage situations, is that is much easier to frame your composition when using the entire viewfinder. Trying to anticipate the cropped area of a FF sensor is not very easy and often leads to unbalanced compositions, or compositions with unintended objects at the edges or object being cut off and leading the eye out of the frame.

That is a non issue with mirrorless cameras, however.

 

[Ozarker]

You would need an 80 Mp FF camera to get the same pixels on target as the the 20 MP Olympus, so no, we have not arrived at that point.
And the second advantage when using a crop camera in reach advatage situations, is that is much easier to frame your composition when using the entire viewfinder. Trying to anticipate the cropped area of a FF sensor is not very easy and often leads to unbalanced compositions, or compositions with unintended objects at the edges or object being cut off and leading the eye out of the frame.

Um, I have a FF Canon and a Micro 4/3 Olympus. The image quality is higher on my Canon than the Olympus as it relates to framing the same. I think sensor size and pixel pitch has more to do with IQ than the # of pixels when comparing a FF 5D Mark III to an Olympus E-M5 Mark II.

As far as I know there is no reach advantage. There's just a different field of view. If I use a 24-70 on my Canon and my 12-40 on the Olympus (crop factor 2x), and set the Oly at 30mm and the Canon at 60mm I am standing at the same exact spot with each camera to get the same framing. Right? There is no reach advantage. To me, "Reach" implies the crop sensor gets one closer to the target. It doesn't. Only the FOV has changed.

IQ? Please. My 5D Mark III beats my Olympus hands down, just like it killed my old 70D. So get all the pixels on target you like, M4/3 will never beat FF. Never. Of course, a better comparison might be a Canon M4/3 camera that uses EF lenses for comparison. Don't think we will ever see that. Hoping I did not misunderstand the post.

Do you own a FF and also M43 camera? I do. I shoot fashion shows. I would never choose to do that with my Olympus.

I used to shoot night time football games. Would I ever do that with the Olympus? Hell no.

So, unless you are going to say that for wildlife shooting the M4/3 has an advantage, I call BS. I also call BS on the idea it offers any advantage at all. The only advantage in my experience is weight. There really is not a size advantage worth mentioning.

 

[Ozarker]

Really?View attachment 181675

People just make stuff up. It's like the people who say, "95% of people this or that." People just make things up so that their imaginary world isn't disturbed. Forget facts. Just make it up. Critical thinking is dead. Lazy delusion is alive and well. My dad used to say particular people were brain lazy. Good term.

 

[Joules]

There's just a different field of view. If I use a 24-70 on my Canon and my 12-40 on the Olympus (crop factor 2x), and set the Oly at 30mm and the Canon at 60mm I am standing at the same exact spot with each camera to get the same framing. Right? There is no reach advantage. [...] My 5D Mark III beats my Olympus hands down, just like it killed my old 70D. So get all the pixels on target you like, M4/3 will never beat FF.

[...]

Only advantage in my experience is weight.

First, I don't own either a m4/3 nor digital Full Frame camera, just an 80D. So I have no real experience on the mattter. But I have been giving this some thought recently since I want to purchase a new lens to get more reach than my 55-250 IS STM provides.

So I believe you've demonstrated the point really well. The only differences between sensor sizes are the area which captures light, and for equal focal lengths this changes the field of view. To see the reach advantage, you just have to construct your example a bit differently.

You're standing in the same spot with two cameras: One with FF and one with m4/3 sensor. Both have a lens with the same physical focal length attached, say a Canon 300mm 4.0 L IS.

The m4/3 captures only one fourth of the lenses image circle's area. So it gives a tighter framing and collects only one fourth the amount of photons projected by the lens. Some people express these facts by saying the 300mm 4.0 behaves like a 600mm 8.0 lens on the m4/3 cameras. Think of that way of putting it as you wish.

The FF camera obviously captures more of the image circle, giving an image that is twice as large in both dimensions and contains 4 times the photons. However, it frames way less tightly.

But you could simply crop into the image. To match the framing of the m4/3 camera, you would have to half your image height and width, leaving you with the same FoV as the crop body and the same amount of collected light. So now your images should be equal in framing and noise, given the same output view size and similar sensor technologies. Your 5D image would have been reduced to 5,5 MP though, where the Olympus would have 16 so for large output sizes, the Olympus image might be better suited.

You argument from your original example was that you can just use a better lens on the FF body to avoid the cropping. Well, go do that. A Canon 600mm 4.0 will cost you more money than either camera did when you purchased it though. You could also just use a 2X teleconverter on the FF body and leave the crop as is for a mild price increase, but you would still lose 2 stops of light, bringing you back to a similar situation where both cameras frame equal and produce the same noise when viewed under identical output circumstances.

So, the reach advantage boils down to: Theoretically, at 300mm the higher pixel density of a crop body yields a greater potential for magnification using the same lens. Or, put differently, for a constant weight and price, you get more reach from a crop body.

If my understanding of this topic is wrong I would love to hear about it. I've used this argumentation to estimate how much value I'd get out of a Sigma 150-600mm C compared to a Canon 100-400mm IS II and so far I'm thinking I'd be losing some AF capabilities and build quality but getting equivalent optic quality and reach with 118% the weight for 45% the cost. Which seems a good deal for me. If I see this wrong, please enlighten me.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Haven't we arrived at a point, were there is no more real "reach advantage" for smaller sensors ... IQ from FF cropped in post better than from small sensor?

Well as usual you are missing the point. The point I was trying to make is that the Olympus is a lot smaller and lighter than the equivalent DSLR but the same cannot be said of the full frame mirrorless cameras that are available. It is the size of the lens i am talking about, not the camera body.
Yes, when viewed side by side the image from the full frame camera is probably going to be better than the one from the Olympus, but sports photography is all about capturing the moment and you are more likely to be able to achieve that if you are not carrying a huge camera and lens around.

 

[Talys]

People just make stuff up. It's like the people who say, "95% of people this or that." People just make things up so that their imaginary world isn't disturbed. Forget facts. Just make it up. Critical thinking is dead. Lazy delusion is alive and well. My dad used to say particular people were brain lazy. Good term.

You can blame the fact free turd in the oval office for making it cool to just make stuff up. I can't believe that on CNN, they did a WH press conference with a split screen with fact checking on the left while it aired live.

I wish my high school and college papers could have been done that way. Instead of doing research, just make some stuff up and claim it as fact!

 

[Ozarker]

First, I don't own either a m4/3 nor digital Full Frame camera, just an 80D. So I have no real experience on the mattter. But I have been giving this some thought recently since I want to purchase a new lens to get more reach than my 55-250 IS STM provides.

So I believe you've demonstrated the point really well. The only differences between sensor sizes are the area which captures light, and for equal focal lengths this changes the field of view. To see the reach advantage, you just have to construct your example a bit differently.

You're standing in the same spot with two cameras: One with FF and one with m4/3 sensor. Both have a lens with the same physical focal length attached, say a Canon 300mm 4.0 L IS.

The m4/3 captures only one fourth of the lenses image circle's area. So it gives a tighter framing and collects only one fourth the amount of photons projected by the lens. Some people express these facts by saying the 300mm 4.0 behaves like a 600mm 8.0 lens on the m4/3 cameras. Think of that way of putting it as you wish.

The FF camera obviously captures more of the image circle, giving an image that is twice as large in both dimensions and contains 4 times the photons. However, it frames way less tightly.

But you could simply crop into the image. To match the framing of the m4/3 camera, you would have to half your image height and width, leaving you with the same FoV as the crop body and the same amount of collected light. So now your images should be equal in framing and noise, given the same output view size and similar sensor technologies. Your 5D image would have been reduced to 5,5 MP though, where the Olympus would have 16 so for large output sizes, the Olympus image might be better suited.

You argument from your original example was that you can just use a better lens on the FF body to avoid the cropping. Well, go do that. A Canon 600mm 4.0 will cost you more money than either camera did when you purchased it though. You could also just use a 2X teleconverter on the FF body and leave the crop as is for a mild price increase, but you would still lose 2 stops of light, bringing you back to a similar situation where both cameras frame equal and produce the same noise when viewed under identical output circumstances.

So, the reach advantage boils down to: Theoretically, at 300mm the higher pixel density of a crop body yields a greater potential for magnification using the same lens. Or, put differently, for a constant weight and price, you get more reach from a crop body.

If my understanding of this topic is wrong I would love to hear about it. I've used this argumentation to estimate how much value I'd get out of a Sigma 150-600mm C compared to a Canon 100-400mm IS II and so far I'm thinking I'd be losing some AF capabilities and build quality but getting equivalent optic quality and reach with 118% the weight for 45% the cost. Which seems a good deal for me. If I see this wrong, please enlighten me.

First, I do not believe the Sigma lens you are talking about is available for M4/3. However, Fuji offers the
Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR (M4/3) for $1,599 with the current rebate here in the states. That's equivalent framing to an 800mm on FF if you go M4/3. Regular price is $1,899 and more expensive than the Canon 100-400. I don't know about Germany. But we were not speaking about lenses. We were speaking about sensor performance. That being the case, I would stick to the 80D and buy the Sigma lens long before switching to M4/3. But don't forget that the Sigma is a slower lens than the Canon. However, there is also the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L that offers great value at about $1,200. On your 80D it would be equivalent to 640mm framing. Why you want to throw the Canon 600MM f/4L into this discussion at all makes no sense to me. I could also add a 2X tele converter to a 400mm lens and get 800mm on FF, or it would "behave" like a 1,280mm on your 80D. So tell me how crop is an advantage again? When all I need is one of Canon's superb tele converters?

Second, my argument was not that I could use a "better" lens to avoid cropping. That is not what I said or implied at all. Again, my post did not have to do with lenses. It really had to do with what dak723 said about M4/3 systems. From my own real world experience I can say I'll take FF over M4/3 any day. Theory is one thing, actual use is another.

Third, low light performance and noise are absolutely not the same. Maybe one would want to argue this point based on shooting a bird from 30 yards? Then argue that. Sitting in the living room of your house where my example makes perfect sense and we are both using the lenses I mentioned (14-40 M4/3, 24-70 FF).

Fourth, if sensor size doesn't make a difference then why not just use an iPhone and install this? https://shop.brando.com/iphone-xr-6...escope-with-tripod-stand_p20102c1597d066.html

I said I would not use my Olympus M4/3 to shoot fashion shows or night time football. I shot football with my 70D and my 70-200 and 400mm. When I switched to FF the difference was clear to me. I have never missed my 70D. I wouldn't use one for fashion shows either.

In the end we have to choose for ourselves. However, saying or implying that a M4/3 sensor on an Olympus will resolve as well as an 80mp FF sensor in any possible situation is absurd. Ridiculous. (dak723)

 

[Ozarker]

You can blame the fact free turd in the oval office for making it cool to just make stuff up. I can't believe that on CNN, they did a WH press conference with a split screen with fact checking on the left while it aired live.

I wish my high school and college papers could have been done that way. Instead of doing research, just make some stuff up and claim it as fact!

Nah. It was cool long before that. Don't give him that much credit. I don't think either candidate was worth a $ h t. But this is a camera forum, not a political forum. I come here to escape all that.

 

[4fun]

Well as usual you are missing the point. The point I was trying to make is that the Olympus is a lot smaller and lighter than the equivalent DSLR but the same cannot be said of the full frame mirrorless cameras that are available. It is the size of the lens i am talking about, not the camera body.

1. "sports photography" ... a very wide field. So many sports. Outdoor/Field vs. indoor. Table tennis in poorly lit indoor venues is one challenge, a basketball court another one, a large soccer/football/baseball stadium another one, track&field outdoors, snow sports, swimming, car racing, .... all different needs. Only some sports require use of big long [white ] tele lenses.

2. Unfortunately size, weight and price of mFT gear do not scale well with sensor size. mFT sensor surface is only about a quarter of FF, but "pro"-grade mFT lenses are almost as big, fat, heavy and expensive.

For me mFT has therefore never been enticing. I rather go for a camera with larger sensor and lenses 1 or 2 stops slower, smaller, lighter, less expensive. f/4.0 FF zooms would require f/2.0 zooms on mFT for full equivalence. They would not be much smaller, lighter or less expensive.

3. With today's hi-rez FF sensors - 40, 50, + MP - the "reach advantage" of smaller sensors has become a "mere illusion".

 

[dak723]

Um, I have a FF Canon and a Micro 4/3 Olympus. The image quality is higher on my Canon than the Olympus as it relates to framing the same. I think sensor size and pixel pitch has more to do with IQ than the # of pixels when comparing a FF 5D Mark III to an Olympus E-M5 Mark II.

As far as I know there is no reach advantage. There's just a different field of view. If I use a 24-70 on my Canon and my 12-40 on the Olympus (crop factor 2x), and set the Oly at 30mm and the Canon at 60mm I am standing at the same exact spot with each camera to get the same framing. Right? There is no reach advantage. To me, "Reach" implies the crop sensor gets one closer to the target. It doesn't. Only the FOV has changed.

IQ? Please. My 5D Mark III beats my Olympus hands down, just like it killed my old 70D. So get all the pixels on target you like, M4/3 will never beat FF. Never. Of course, a better comparison might be a Canon M4/3 camera that uses EF lenses for comparison. Don't think we will ever see that. Hoping I did not misunderstand the post.

Do you own a FF and also M43 camera? I do. I shoot fashion shows. I would never choose to do that with my Olympus.

I used to shoot night time football games. Would I ever do that with the Olympus? Hell no.

So, unless you are going to say that for wildlife shooting the M4/3 has an advantage, I call BS. I also call BS on the idea it offers any advantage at all. The only advantage in my experience is weight. There really is not a size advantage worth mentioning.

I can not argue against your own experience. Yes, there are clearly advantages to a FF sensor.

However, I have owned FF, Canon crop and M4/3rds systems. While not doing any scientific analysis, with the cameras and lenses that I do or did own, clearly my experience and results differed from yours. I shoot almost exclusively in daylight and print no larger than 8" x 12". For telephoto situations, I felt the Olympus gave me the best overall results - including the ability to frame the composition exactly as I want. If the resolution was lower - and it may very well have been - it was not noticeable at the print size I used. In fact, the FF results in general, were not noticeably enough better than with either crop size, so I ended up selling the FF.

Again, different photographers have different results. I will not consider your results and experience to be BS however.