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

[neuroanatomist]

How is this logic flawed? Canon did in fact release a few excellent RF lenses and as a result are commanding a premium. The teardown shows they've gone through extensive lengths to modernize their RF lenses with completely new mech/elec designs vs current EF lenses. Lke the teardown says, the lenses were NOT whipped up in the last year. That I get.

The disconnect I feel is with the EOS R body. Like others have mentioned, they probably had 2 on track for release, but couldn't push out the flagship in time, so the EOS R became their launch vehicle. I think that approach probably makes sense, as they can see how the EOS R goes, and tweak the EOS Rs from there. They can even throw in IBIS in there based on recent rumored rumblings. The teardown shows the EOS R doesn't have any better weather sealing that its competitors and equal build quality to Sony. Dustin's review praises a number of things, but also recognizes that it has some ergonomic contradictions, uncharacteristic of Canon.

You can't concurrently launch a new lens mount and lenses without an accompanying body, can you? Canon must have expected that they would receive some media backlash for this release, but coffers in the boardroom probably thought that since we already have 50% of the market, and any FF MILC release would take steam away their FF MILC competitors, they decided to just launch.

That's great for Canon's bottom line, but I'm not sure how that benefits the consumer.

Your logic is flawed because the release of a consumer-level FF MILC alongside both consumer and high-end lenses for it in no way implies the body was rushed. What you really seem to be saying is that if Canon had taken more time, they'd have released a FF MILC with features that you personally want, and/or features that are wanted by others or have been suggested in rumors. There's no evidence for that. Canon has been making ILCs and lenses for decades, and they've released 6 MILCs in the past 6 years – logic would suggest they have a damn good idea of development cycle timelines, not that they 'rushed to market'.

Sure, there were rumors of two bodies launched concurrently. There were CR2 rumors about the imminent launch of the 100-400 II starting six years before the lens was actually launched. If you're unclear on the definition of 'rumor', consult a dictionary.

As for the teardown, Roger found the build/sealing similar to a 6-series DSLR. The launch price of the EOS R puts it squarely in 6-series territory. Nothing surprising there.

The EOS R is selling well – that's good for the consumers buying it, and competition in the segment is good for consumers in general. Of course, strong sales are also good for Canon's bottom line...and I hope you realize that is what really matters to Canon, and that 'benefiting the consumer' is absolutely not a priority for Canon, or any company.

 

[woodman411]

Sorry, but that's just not true. It may not be worse than a 5D was with an EF 50/1.2 (but at least one can try and make a consistently repeatable technique with that instead of relying on the camera altogether)
A lot of time it catches the face, or the wrong eye, or even missing focus completely in some cases. We need to see if the promised firmware update with the continous Eye AF fixes that to some degree. But right now, consistently good AF is not its strong suit either with the EF/RF 50/1.2 (they focus the same way, except the RF lens does not have the focus shift problem) or the 28-70/2.

So you disagree with Bryan Carnathan's findings?

Sensor-based AF speeds have improved dramatically in recent years. While the fastest AF statement excludes traditionally extremely-fast-focusing DSLRs, Canon has improved sensor-based AF speed to the point of practically matching traditional phase detection AF. When comparing the AF speed of a Canon EOS 5Ds R with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens to that of Canon EOS R with a Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens, my perception was that the R with the RF lens focused slightly faster. But, the R's combination was far quieter. So, I tried the EF lens on both cameras. I struggled to perceive which was faster and also tried the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens with similar results. The bottom line is that the EOS R focuses very impressively fast.
For those choosing between Sony and Canon MILCs, note that the Canon does not defocus prior to focusing in One Shot AF mode. Especially because of this design difference, the Canon's One Shot AF lock time is dramatically faster than the Sony's. Worth noting is that focus performance is good even with a very-strongly defocused starting point. Note that the Canon EOS R focuses (and determines exposure) with the aperture wide open, similar to the prior EOS models.

If so, please provide your rebuttal, as specifically as possible, thanks.

 

[padam]

So you disagree with Bryan Carnathan's findings?

I've read it, and it doesn't say anywhere, that it always finds the nearest eye, which is pretty much what you need if you are shooting at wide-open apertures anything other than straight-on.
Without that, it is just not going to be consistently good (even the Sony continous eye-AF is not perfect, but it is a heck of a lot better)

If you look up more on the RF 50mm f/1.2 You can find plenty of mis-focused examples online. Even some hardcore Canon users agree, that the body is not up to the lenses at this point, and not just because of the single card slot.

Ok, I know, must be user error of course. The thing is though, selecting a precise AF point on this camera is not so easy, one kind of has to accept a certain amount of automation, which is of course much more convenient - if it works the right way...

 

[jayphotoworks]

Your logic is flawed because the release of a consumer-level FF MILC alongside both consumer and high-end lenses for it in no way implies the body was rushed. What you really seem to be saying is that if Canon had taken more time, they'd have released a FF MILC with features that you personally want, and/or features that are wanted by others or have been suggested in rumors. There's no evidence for that. Canon has been making ILCs and lenses for decades, and they've released 6 MILCs in the past 6 years – logic would suggest they have a damn good idea of development cycle timelines, not that they 'rushed to market'.

Sure, there were rumors of two bodies launched concurrently. There were CR2 rumors about the imminent launch of the 100-400 II starting six years before the lens was actually launched. If you're unclear on the definition of 'rumor', consult a dictionary.

I'm not saying that Canon needed more time to improve the EOS R. They always meant to release it as is. What I meant is that they probably wanted to launch it together with a higher specced model, with enough differentiation between them. Competition might have changed that schedule and they launched the EOS R first. This is simply my opinion based on a number of rumors originating from this site. Continuous Eye-AF might have been in the launch firmware as well. After all, that's what this site is right? If you are asking me to provide evidence on a opinion based on a rumor, then it definitely isn't me who needs a dictionary....

The EOS R is selling well – that's good for the consumers buying it, and competition in the segment is good for consumers in general. Of course, strong sales are also good for Canon's bottom line...and I hope you realize that is what really matters to Canon, and that 'benefiting the consumer' is absolutely not a priority for Canon, or any company.

Agreed, but at the same time, Canon shouldn't get a hall pass simply for being a market leader. Sure, they don't "need" to do anything to benefit the consumer, but the criticism they receive in the press is warranted and should continue for as long as they decide to "not do anything".

 

[Tremotino]

not in the Europe I live in.
https://geizhals.at/canon-eos-5d-ma...oc=uk&hloc=eu&v=e&togglecountry=set#offerlist

EOS R generally € 2899 - body only. best deal from reputable dealers 2699.
Sony A7 III - € 2244 and up [from non-fly-by night-scammers]

Bullshit
official price from canon.de 2499€
in Munich you can buy it for 2299€ (in a well known store, where I bought it) and internet of course cheaper for 1800€
I'm really sorry if in your Europe it's so expensive...

 

[Tremotino]

Could you please tell us where you'll get an official European import for 1800 euros?

ebay.de for example or since pounds are so week you can buy from uk for similar € prices.
I think, if I do more research I will find even cheaper reliable offers.

 

[4fun]

Bullshit
official price from canon.de 2499€
in Munich you can buy it for 2299€ (in a well known store, where I bought it) and internet of course cheaper for 1800€
I'm really sorry if in your Europe it's so expensive...

you are right about the 2499 in Canon.de store. It is also the current street price for non-grey imports. Not sure why it did not come up in my first first quick search.

But why did you pay 2299 if you think you can get an EOS R for 1800 ? ;-)
And was your 2299 EOS R possibly a demo unit at the store in Munich?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm not saying that Canon needed more time to improve the EOS R. They always meant to release it as is.

You said EOS R was a rushed product.

I think generally speaking the EOS R wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms, and Canon probably does deserve to be in 3rd place at this point in time in the particular review.

But I think the release of $3k and $4k lenses probably means it was simply a rushed product in response to the competition and that it will be followed up with a proper response.

If they meant to release it as is, how was it rushed? Your logic has more holes than Emmenthal cheese.

As for the purported higher-spec camera, well, if you want to base your opinions on rumors and hearsay, that's fine for you. I prefer to base my opinions on observations, facts and data.

Agreed, but at the same time, Canon shouldn't get a hall pass simply for being a market leader. Sure, they don't "need" to do anything to benefit the consumer, but the criticism they receive in the press is warranted and should continue for as long as they decide to "not do anything".

They don't appear to need a hall pass, given the success of the EOS R to date.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Bullshit
official price from canon.de 2499€
in Munich you can buy it for 2299€ (in a well known store, where I bought it) and internet of course cheaper for 1800€
I'm really sorry if in your Europe it's so expensive...

Maybe the Europe being referred to is Norway? If so that is a terrible example. A simple stopover there in the airport nearly bankrupted me once. Jokes aside everywhere is different and sometimes countries are much more expensive than others unfortunately for me as an Aussie I am in one of those countries

 

[jayphotoworks]

You said EOS R was a rushed product.


If they meant to release it as is, how was it rushed? Your logic has more holes than Emmenthal cheese.

I said it was rushed in response to the competition, not rushed to market short on features. Trying to explain things to you is like explaining things to a third grader. I'm sure the third time's the charm for you, or maybe not.

As for the purported higher-spec camera, well, if you want to base your opinions on rumors and hearsay, that's fine for you. I prefer to base my opinions on observations, facts and data.

Then don't come on a rumors site and be upset when people discuss rumors. You are clearly in the wrong place. All your observations, facts and data all lead to the same message.. "Canon leads in market share..." we've heard it a million times from you and clearly it and you add nothing new to the conversation.

They don't appear to need a hall pass, given the success of the EOS R to date.

Sure, and don't feel sour grapes when the reviews don't favor it as well as you would like. Not every review site is anti-Canon, but I'm sure you beg to differ.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I said it was rushed in response to the competition, not rushed to market short on features. Trying to explain things to you is like explaining things to a third grader. I'm sure the third time's the charm for you, or maybe not.

Ironic that my third grader has better logical comprehension than you've demonstrated to this point. But even she doesn't base entire arguments on rumors.

Then don't come on a rumors site and be upset when people discuss rumors. You are clearly in the wrong place. All your observations, facts and data all lead to the same message.. "Canon leads in market share..." we've heard it a million times from you and clearly it and you add nothing new to the conversation.

It's unfortunate that you're upset by the truth. Regrettably, that's becoming all too common these days.

Sure, and don't feel sour grapes when the reviews don't favor it as well as you would like. Not every review site is anti-Canon, but I'm sure you beg to differ.

Why would I be disappointed if the EOS R (or any camera) gets mediocre or poor reviews? Yes, DPR has an obvious bias, which makes them unreliable in terms of brand comparison. They are also in some cases apparently inept (at least regarding Canon testing – e.g., using settings the manual recommends against when evaluating performance). But there are plenty of good review sites out there.

 

[woodman411]

I've read it, and it doesn't say anywhere, that it always finds the nearest eye, which is pretty much what you need if you are shooting at wide-open apertures anything other than straight-on.
Without that, it is just not going to be consistently good (even the Sony continous eye-AF is not perfect, but it is a heck of a lot better)

If you look up more on the RF 50mm f/1.2 You can find plenty of mis-focused examples online. Even some hardcore Canon users agree, that the body is not up to the lenses at this point, and not just because of the single card slot.

Ok, I know, must be user error of course. The thing is though, selecting a precise AF point on this camera is not so easy, one kind of has to accept a certain amount of automation, which is of course much more convenient - if it works the right way...

If I understand correctly, your issue is primarily the face/eye detect focusing. Which is strange because the fact detect on my 5d4 is pretty accurate at f/1.2 for the nearest eye. Hopefully a firmware update can help.

 

[jayphotoworks]

Ironic that my third grader has better logical comprehension than you've demonstrated to this point. But even she doesn't base entire arguments on rumors.

The point yet eludes you again. Come back again when have something new to add. Arguing about comprehension and semantics is tiring and detracts from the entire conversation, but that's about all you can offer up I see.

It's unfortunate that you're upset by the truth. Regrettably, that's becoming all too common these days.

The real truth is most other members here have something new to add, having tried something new or willing to offer a different vantage point. You on the other hand, continue on the same path with the same information. It's quite boring honestly.

Why would I be disappointed if the EOS R (or any camera) gets mediocre or poor reviews? Yes, DPR has an obvious bias, which makes them unreliable in terms of brand comparison. They are also in some cases apparently inept (at least regarding Canon testing – e.g., using settings the manual recommends against when evaluating performance). But there are plenty of good review sites out there.

Reviewers are human and are not infallible. You seem to harp on the same point again and again and consider them unreliable in brand comparisons based on this point. I guess that also means that DPR's recent IBIS article is also anti-Canon since they plan on considering not having IBIS a con. From your viewpoint, Canon had no need to introduce this because the "market" didn't need it. Personally, I was suspect of Canon's AF system for quite some time after the 1D3 fiasco in which they vehemently denied anything was wrong. It wasn't until the press persevered that they relented and eventually offered a fix. I had one of those original cameras.. A sports flagship that can't track AF properly.

Like I said in my original post, regardless of how you feel, they command a large readership and they have some influence over the market. You... are just you. If you have nothing new to add, besides the usual passive aggressive nature in your replies. Let it go and let others who have something new to say take your place. You won't be missed..

 

[neuroanatomist]

The real truth is most other members here have something new to add, having tried something new or willing to offer a different vantage point.

New vantage points are welcome. But when those vantage points promote logical fallacies, those promulgating them should not be surprised when they are called on it. It seems you were deeply offended by that, which is unfortunate.

 

[jayphotoworks]

New vantage points are welcome. But when those vantage points promote logical fallacies, those promulgating them should not be surprised when they are called on it. It seems you were deeply offended by that, which is unfortunate.

It became a logical fallacy when you misunderstood what was being conveyed and chose to interpret it in a way that positions yourself to craft your usual themes of condescension and passive aggressive retort. You can choose to start an engaging dialog or ask for clarification. Civility is what you lack and that is what truly offends me, and it is unfortunate you choose to govern yourself this way.

But the biggest lesson I've learnt today is that I should take my own advice. I recommended that people that do not like DPR's reviews to simply not read them. Yet, I'm reading and responding to these type of posts here. I should probably do the same the next time you start this form of dialog. Like a third grader, if you ignore them a few times, they'll lose interest and move on somewhere else. I guess the ignore list would be the same form of vehicle here to achieve that in this domain.

 

[bhf3737]

The real truth is most other members here have something new to add, having tried something new or willing to offer a different vantage point. You on the other hand, continue on the same path with the same information. It's quite boring honestly.

With respect, I think different vantage points are welcome if they are constructive, verifiable by data and/or logically justifiable. I don't know about the others but I personally don't categorize hearsays and unsubstantiated claims as novel viewpoints and throw them into the unsubstantiated speculation bin.

 

[jayphotoworks]

With respect, I think different vantage points are welcome if they are constructive, verifiable by data and/or logically justifiable. I don't know about the others but I personally don't categorize hearsays and unsubstantiated claims as novel viewpoints and throw them into the unsubstantiated speculation bin.

I can accept that. At the same time, I think there can be capacity for us to sometimes discuss speculative based viewpoints where we don't always have immediately verifiable data.. The nature of the site including it's name would seem to be the ideal platform to have that form of dialog.

 

[4fun]

the facts are well established:
* EOS R mount is "really right"
* EOS R camera body lacks important features and is higher priced than competition - this earns it some critical reviews and slight disappointment by many here - except the usual Canon Defense League members
* 2 RF lenses are stellar performers, but "exotic niche" glass, not relevant to majority of (potential) R customers. and they are in strange contrast to the pedestrian EOS R body
* 2 RF lenses are neither much better nor more compact than EF versions, but significantly more expensive.
* refusal to clearly communicate plans for their 4 ILC product lines - EF, EF-S, EF-M, R - eg by way of clear roadmaps" and "official company statements" instead of only vague and unclear interviews causes a lot of avoidable uncertainty for existing and potential new Canon customers and is not to Canon's advantage, but helps their competitors - irrespective of whether or not Canon retains market leadership for now ...

no amount of "semantics wanking" can change those facts.

Best response from our end is simply not to buy for now. If/when sales are less than expected, Canon will lower prices (eg via "cash back" promotions) and/or come up with products that are better featured (camera bodies) and targeted at more mainstream market segments (lenses).

 

[bhf3737]

the facts are well established:
* EOS R camera body lacks important features and is higher priced than competition - this earns it some critical reviews and slight disappointment by many here - except the usual Canon Defense League members

Purely subjective and not a fact. It is a two way street. EOS-R has some important features (e.g. DPAF, ability to focus wide open to -6EV, c-log, etc.) that the others do not have. Price is set based on market analysis not the feature set that the camera does not have!

* 2 RF lenses are neither much better nor more compact than EF versions, but significantly more expensive.

False claim. Prices quoted from Canon CA site:
RF 24–105mm F/4L IS USM (MSRP: $1,449.99) vs. EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (MSRP: $1,449.99)
RF 35mm F/1.8 Macro IS STM (MSRP: $649.99) vs. EF 35mm f/2 IS USM (MSRP: $879.99)
The two affordable RF lenses based on your classification are either set to have the same price or cheaper and partially have better features, e.g. RF 35mm lens is brighter and has Macro capability.

* refusal to clearly communicate plans for their 4 ILC product lines - EF, EF-S, EF-M, R - eg by way of clear roadmaps" and "official company statements" instead of only vague and unclear interviews causes a lot of avoidable uncertainty for existing and potential new Canon customers and is not to Canon's advantage, but helps their competitors.

Businesses report to and get approval from their shareholders. Who said that they should reveal their future plans and report to yourself? Do you know next year's plan of Amazon, Uber or Apple? Why you want it from Canon then?

 

[4fun]

Businesses report to and get approval from their shareholders. Who said that they should reveal their future plans and report to yourself? Do you know next year's plan of Amazon, Uber or Apple? Why you want it from Canon then?

Nobody is asking them to publish their internal financial planning or "real business secrets". And it is not only in my interest and that of many other interested (potential) buyers. First and foremost it would be in Canon's own best corporate and financial interest to give their existing and potential new customers as specific an outlook as possible on what products they can expect for the current 4 product lines and a timeline with it ...aka "roadmap". Other reputable and successful companies have no problem doing so.

btw: I also consider Apple's policy of (attempted) surprise product launches without previous announcement as "childish", "outdated" and "sub-optimal" in the 21st century. For the same reasons as for Canon. Treating grown-up, well-informed customers like "consumer idiots" or 3-year old chilren who "don't need to know, but are best surprised" was already a bad idea back in the 1960s and it is an even worse idea today.

If you want as many people as possible to board your bus, train or plane ... it is smart to clearly communicate what destination you are going to ... along with scheduled departure and arrival times ... as well as stops en route. Same applies to makers of tangible products, includuing "consumer products". Especially when we are really talking about "product eco-systems". After all, Canon is not a start-up just launching its first product via kickstarter campaign, not knowing whether they'll be able to actually make it and what might come next ...