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

[Tremotino]

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?

it was new
I got a refund of 400€ for my old camera and I don't like to buy online

 

[Tremotino]

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.

You need to think one step further, just as simple as that.
we know exactly what canon will bring to the market in the next 3 years for the rf system and we know also that it won't happen from one day to another. So just let canon bring out the high mp camera, the sports camera, they will for sure all be introduced in the near future also the standard zooms will come for the rf system and very nice primes and even more great stuff.
if they show as the roadmap for the rf, they need to show us also the one for the ef. maybe they just don't want us to say that the ef system got enough lenses and it's time for new stuff. (which everyone knows by now)

btw. the childish stuff just let it at home, otherview we can stop here discussing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Civility? You might want to re-read the discussion. I started with a request for clarification and the statement that there seemed to be a gap in your logic. The discussion remained civil until you chose to compare me to a third grader. Logically, you should be truly offended by your own behavior.

As for the content, it started as a logical fallacy – yours. The EOS R was rushed to market because Nikon launched a FF MILC, and your idea was 'supported' by Canon launching one consumer-grade lens, a standard L lens, and two high end lenses with it, but not launching a rumored second higher-spec model. First off, can a high-end lens not be used on a lower spec body? Lol, of course that's a fallacy. Lots of people put L-lenses on APS-C bodies costing far less than the lens. More importantly, your argument is based on a rumor. Sure, this is the place for rumors, it's right in the name. And sure, in April to early July of this year there were several 'two Canon FF MILCs coming' rumors. But then in mid-July (soon after the last two-camera post), Craig (CRguy) apologized for the messy state of the recent rumors on Canon FF MILCs:

For the record, we’re backtracking on things we’ve posted in recent weeks. I don’t like it, but it happens.

As for the full frame mirrorless, I’m going to tone down significantly what I report on the topic until I get information that I know to be legit, as to not unintentionally mislead the fine readers of this site.

In other words, the central pillar of suppprt for your claim was previously walked back by its creator. Your opinion is based not just on a rumor, but on a retracted rumor. A big lesson you could learn today is to base your opinions on fact, but I suspect you'll choose to ignore that lesson in favor of more name-calling.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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!

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.

Well, false claims and ignorance of facts are the norm for 4fun/mirage/fullstop/AvTvM. Nothing new there.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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 ...

Clearly, Canon and Apple disagree with you, and both are more successful in their markets than their competitors who do publish roadmaps.

From a personal standpoint, I agree with you. I'd like to know what's coming down the pike from both Canon and Apple, and approximately when. That knowledge would inform my buying decisions. I want to buy my daughter a new laptop, will the MacBook be refreshed soon? How will it compare to the new MB Air? Apple won't say. On the other hand, I could approach it more simply – any of the current Mac laptops will meet her needs for several years, so if I buy her an 'outdated' MacBook now and a new one comes out next month, how does that hurt me?

But importantly, I don't make the mistake of confusing my personal desires with what's best for a particular corporation.

 

[dak723]

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!


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.


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?

Excellent post.

As is so often the case, people make up crap, or just voice what is clearly an opinion, then state it as fact. Obviously, some folks don't know what facts are - or more often - choose to ignore them.

 

[jayphotoworks]

Civility? You might want to re-read the discussion. I started with a request for clarification and the statement that there seemed to be a gap in your logic. The discussion remained civil until you chose to compare me to a third grader. Logically, you should be truly offended by your own behavior.

As for the content, it started as a logical fallacy – yours. The EOS R was rushed to market because Nikon launched a FF MILC, and your idea was 'supported' by Canon launching one consumer-grade lens, a standard L lens, and two high end lenses with it, but not launching a rumored second higher-spec model. First off, can a high-end lens not be used on a lower spec body? Lol, of course that's a fallacy. Lots of people put L-lenses on APS-C bodies costing far less than the lens. More importantly, your argument is based on a rumor. Sure, this is the place for rumors, it's right in the name. And sure, in April to early July of this year there were several 'two Canon FF MILCs coming' rumors. But then in mid-July (soon after the last two-camera post), Craig (CRguy) apologized for the messy state of the recent rumors on Canon FF MILCs:

In other words, the central pillar of suppprt for your claim was previously walked back by its creator. Your opinion is based not just on a rumor, but on a retracted rumor. A big lesson you could learn today is to base your opinions on fact, but I suspect you'll choose to ignore that lesson in favor of more name-calling.

At this stage, I simply refuse to continue this dialog with you since as usual, you prefer to create the stage that favors whatever tangent you seem to be on.

For the record, when I clarified, you proceeded to misinterpret further without any consideration for what was being said. I'm sure we could have had a civil discussion if you didn't proceed to further antagonize the discussion with comparisons to Swiss cheese. You can choose to call me out however you wish, but you should accept being called out on when your behavior is less than ideal.

This is your usual attitude here and has been called out by others. You don't have to choose to change, But yes, I've learnt my lesson today. The most civil approach would be to ignore all of your replies in the first place.

 

[neuroanatomist]

At this stage, I simply refuse to continue this dialog with you since as usual, you prefer to create the stage that favors whatever tangent you seem to be on.

For the record, when I clarified, you proceeded to misinterpret further without any consideration for what was being said. I'm sure we could have had a civil discussion if you didn't proceed to further antagonize the discussion with comparisons to Swiss cheese. You can choose to call me out however you wish, but you should accept being called out on when your behavior is less than ideal.

This is your usual attitude here and has been called out by others. You don't have to choose to change, But yes, I've learnt my lesson today. The most civil approach would be to ignore all of your replies in the first place.

"I simply refuse to continue this dialog but for the record when I......"

"I should probably take my own advice and just ignore your replies, but when you said......"

LOL.

What you seem to be saying now is, "I'm losing so I'm going to just take my marbles and go home." In that context, your repeated references to third graders make perfect sense.

 

[jayphotoworks]

You need to think one step further, just as simple as that.
we know exactly what canon will bring to the market in the next 3 years for the rf system and we know also that it won't happen from one day to another. So just let canon bring out the high mp camera, the sports camera, they will for sure all be introduced in the near future also the standard zooms will come for the rf system and very nice primes and even more great stuff.
if they show as the roadmap for the rf, they need to show us also the one for the ef. maybe they just don't want us to say that the ef system got enough lenses and it's time for new stuff. (which everyone knows by now)

btw. the childish stuff just let it at home, otherview we can stop here discussing.

Apologies for the childish activity here. Rather than trying to get in the last word, I've simply added the instigator to my ignore list, so we can finally get back to the discussion at hand.

I felt that Canon's first effort was decent, but not groundbreaking. Buying a first gen product has it's risks and I didn't wade into Sony until the third gen came about. That was right at the time they revamped their color science and menu ergonomics.

Canon is still working out the firmware as we speak with it's continuous Eye-AF inplementation. If some of the rumors hold true including IBIS, it would be prudent to at least wait for announcement of their flagship to see where things stand.

I mentioned earlier that DPR also now considers lack of IBIS a con as all of the other manufacturers offer it in some form. Lens IS has it's merits for longer FLs, but offering both would be truly ideal. Not every lens has stabilization.

The average consumer shooting video for example in fully auto mode would definitely benefit from this. Although not entirely relevant to Canon, I have a Hero 7 and even with hypersmooth it fails entirely once the light levels drop because it can't correct slower shutter speeds and you get spagehtti lights and motion blur. Of course you can increase the shutter speed and push the ISO, but not everyone is aware of the correlation. Later firmware revisions did exactly that to mitigate the issue.

 

[dcm]

I felt that Canon's first effort was decent, but not groundbreaking.

This thread is reminiscent of the EOS M discussions 5 years ago.

I think we lose sight of "best" being a relative term, not an absolute. It depends on how you measure it. Some look at spec sheet comparisons - years ago I did. That's one measure of best. He who has the most +'s or pros wins. But the spec sheet battle is usually the focus of the newest entrants to the market that are trying to gain market share since they have little else to woo customers. This is true in any business or market. I've watched it play out over and over again in the computer business the last 40 years.

Now I consider what is "best" for my needs, which never includes the entire spec sheet and often includes things not on the spec sheet. For 20+ years I used an A1 (film) just fine. From there I migrated from G3 to S95 to M to M3 to M5 for casual, travel, and trail photography and from a 550D to 6D to 1DX2 for serious photography. I think they were/are the "best" for me.
The limiting factor in my photography is usually my ability, not the equipment. As my skills improve and interests expand, I upgrade.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Apologies for the childish activity here. Rather than trying to get in the last word, I've simply added the instigator to my ignore list,

Despite the pathetically disingenuous way in which you are 'not' trying to get the last word in, I appreciate that you are willing to apologize for your childishness (while notably not admitting your role in instigating it).

 

[AlanF]

Reminds me of the garbage discussions we are suffering here about Brexit, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" the politicians keep telling us. On checking Wikipedia it seems that the origin of the phrase is from Voltaiire: "The best is the enemy of the good" (le mieux est l'ennemi du bien). Then, I came across: Robert Watson-Watt, who developed early warning radar in Britain to counter the rapid growth of the Luftwaffe, propounded a "cult of the imperfect", which he stated as "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes", which just about sums it all up.

 

[jayphotoworks]

This thread is reminiscent of the EOS M discussions 5 years ago.

I think we lose sight of "best" being a relative term, not an absolute. It depends on how you measure it. Some look at spec sheet comparisons - years ago I did. That's one measure of best. He who has the most +'s or pros wins. But the spec sheet battle is usually the focus of the newest entrants to the market that are trying to gain market share since they have little else to woo customers. This is true in any business or market. I've watched it play out over and over again in the computer business the last 40 years.

Now I consider what is "best" for my needs, which never includes the entire spec sheet and often includes things not on the spec sheet. For 20+ years I used an A1 (film) just fine. From there I migrated from G3 to S95 to M to M3 to M5 for casual, travel, and trail photography and from a 550D to 6D to 1DX2 for serious photography. I think they were/are the "best" for me.
The limiting factor in my photography is usually my ability, not the equipment. As my skills improve and interests expand, I upgrade.

Yes, this is true. New entrants do need to do "more" to entice consumers. With that being said, sometimes those spec sheet items can be truly useful and define specs that others do follow behind. Eventually they become standard.

Canon doesn't need to do any of that, but the criticism including being placed 3rd is a result of that.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think we lose sight of "best" being a relative term, not an absolute. It depends on how you measure it. Some look at spec sheet comparisons - years ago I did. That's one measure of best.

Exactly. People lose sight of the fact that everyone defines 'best' for themselves. It's regrettably common on these forums for posters to assume that their own personal definition of 'best' applies universally.

 

[Don Haines]

The problem with spec sheets is that we all want a camera which has "all the best" and at a reasonable cost, but many of us fail to realize that some of our desires are conflicting and that our perfect camera is impossible. For example, I want a fast long lens of high quality that is light, affordable, and waterproof so I can take it in the canoe..... It's just not going to happen!

 

[4fun]

i have to disagree here. most of the forum posters here are NOT asking for totally unrealistic and/or mutually conflicting specs. Typically all we want is Canon products to be "at least on par" with competitor's products in the same price bracket.

Most of the criticism is totally justified. No IBIS is a fact, Sh*tty 4k implementation compared to competition is a fact. Not everybody will need or want all of these features and functionalities, but some or many do. None of it is just "useless spec sheet fluff and chaff". Only the few typical Canon Defenders / fan boyz try to make it look like that.

that's were a lot of the controversy on this forum (and many others) comes from. devoted brand loyalists trying to tell "critical observers" that their criticism is 1. totally irrelevant, 2. totally unfounded, 3. "Canon sells most, Canon knows best" and 4. is nothing but whining. they use all sorts of demagogical tactics, anywhere from condescending to vicious personal attacks in an attempt to discredit critical posters.

luckily i don't give a rats ass sbout them. lol

 

[neuroanatomist]

And yet you keep responding to them, suggesting you have some sort of fetish for rodent hindquarters.

 

[YuengLinger]

Wife: "What are you still doing online?"
Me: "Oh, just reading people scolding each other over and over and over and over."
Wife: "Your son needs a diaper change!"

 

[Mikehit]

i have to disagree here. most of the forum posters here are NOT asking for totally unrealistic and/or mutually conflicting specs. Typically all we want is Canon products to be "at least on par" with competitor's products in the same price bracket.

Most of the criticism is totally justified. No IBIS is a fact, Sh*tty 4k implementation compared to competition is a fact. Not everybody will need or want all of these features and functionalities, but some or many do. None of it is just "useless spec sheet fluff and chaff". Only the few typical Canon Defenders / fan boyz try to make it look like that.

But what do you mean by 'on par'?
Sony has one more stop DR, Canon has the very good touch screen (Sony's is pants)
Sony has an excellent eye AF (great for portraits), Canon has the much-lauded DPAF (great for low light)
Sony has sensor with good shadow recovery, Canon has lenses with seemingly superior edge performance
Sony still produces cameras with variable heat issues, Canon tries not to introduce technology that may cause heat issues because they want that when a pro turns the video on they do not need to worry about when it will crap out.
Sony produce a camera that is small, Canon produce a camera that is comfortable to hold for long periods with heavy pro-grade lenses.

And so the list goes on. Clearly anyone asking for Canon to be 'on par' is based on what they want. Canon has a long history of providing cameras with seemingly inferior spec sheet but people continually praise them ofr improving the photographic experience and the EOS-R seems to continue that thought process.
So it seems that because Canon are clearly superior in areas that people who have never used the camera are not interested in. As ever in technology, 'pick your compromises'

So I beg to differ.

 

[Don Haines]

i have to disagree here. most of the forum posters here are NOT asking for totally unrealistic and/or mutually conflicting specs. Typically all we want is Canon products to be "at least on par" with competitor's products in the same price bracket.

Most of the criticism is totally justified. No IBIS is a fact, Sh*tty 4k implementation compared to competition is a fact. Not everybody will need or want all of these features and functionalities, but some or many do. None of it is just "useless spec sheet fluff and chaff". Only the few typical Canon Defenders / fan boyz try to make it look like that.

that's were a lot of the controversy on this forum (and many others) comes from. devoted brand loyalists trying to tell "critical observers" that their criticism is 1. totally irrelevant, 2. totally unfounded, 3. "Canon sells most, Canon knows best" and 4. is nothing but whining. they use all sorts of demagogical tactics, anywhere from condescending to vicious personal attacks in an attempt to discredit critical posters.

luckily i don't give a rats ass sbout them. lol

I'm probably what you would consider a brand loyalist. I will never buy anything from Sony again (and not just cameras), for a multitude of reasons. I dislike Nikon ergonomics, and if you think that Canon wireless connectivity is bad, try Nikon!

That said, I am also critical of Canon. Yes, I think that the R should have had IBIS, but I did not expect to see it. My bet is that it will be one of the features used to differentiate a higher end R. Same with burst rate, look for 30+fps on a higher end R... 4K? none of us know why Canon's is so bad, so we can only speculate as to why.

If you want to really see how mirrorless is done well, look to Olympus. As far as innovation goes, Canon Nikon, and Sony are all playing catch-up. The Canon M series are nice, but just don't compare to Oly, but then again the flagship M is on sale here for $800, against $1800 for the Ol, also on sale. You want the features, you pay the dollars.... Same with Canon, but at the moment we only have the one camera out there on the R lineup, so at the moment we have even more speculation than normal, but not enough data points to ground it. So yes, look to Olympus and their low end cameras, then look at their high end cameras at 4 times the price, and then remember that the R is just the first and we have no idea what is coming.

Oh yes, about Bluetooth... HOW CAN YOU MAKE A CAMERA WITH BLUETOOTH THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT A BLUETOOTH HEADSET!