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

[4fun]

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

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


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

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

 

[Ozarker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LesC]

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

 

[edoorn]

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

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

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

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

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

 

[scyrene]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stuart]

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

 

[docsmith]

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

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

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

 

[vignes]

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

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

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

 

[4fun]

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

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

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

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

 

[Del Paso]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[privatebydesign]

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

 

[Larsskv]

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

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

 

[4fun]

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

spot on!

 

[3kramd5]

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

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

 

[criscokkat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Etienne]

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

 

[crazyrunner33]

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

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