Here are the full Canon EOS R specifications

[Mark3794]

On balance, I'm not seeing the EOS R being referred to as crippled. But I'm also not seeing that it offers significant advantages over a DSLR.

I bought a m50 to really understand all the hype behind the "mirrorless" world.
The mirrorless have some kind of advantages over a dsrl but a lot of drawbacks too (battery life, you can't use the ovf as spotting scope for wildlife etc). After trying both i still prefer dslr.

 

[scyrene]

I respect the usability of Canon cameras, and how things "just work". But you don't have to have a camera that's 5 years behind tech-wise to have things just work correctly. Even 1 year is an eternity with modern technology, and they're literally 5 years behind in many areas. There's no excuse if something like their sensor tech can't match the d750 from 4 years ago. They make the most money, they have the biggest potential budget. I hope at least the sensor is better.

The insanely weird "they are in the business of making money, not making cameras with modern specs" argument is just wild. Why on earth, as a consumer, would I be in favor of Canon making a boatload of money, vs. making a more reasonable amount of money and spending a little more of that cash to give me a better product? A camera that gives me the stuff other cameras had 3-5 years ago AS WELL as the cool Canon innovations. They certainly have enough money to do so, that's inarguable. I want the best best camera at the best price. If you are a consumer and you're arguing for Canon's bottom line, you are arguing against yourself in favor of a faceless corporation. That is fanboyism at its worst.

We'll see if this is just a 5DIV sensor. We'll see about the price. The announcement is soon. But no one should be satisfied if this turns out to be another significantly sub-par offering. "Canon is in the business of making money" is not a good argument against anyone's disappointment.

The argument isn't - or at least shouldn't be - 'Canon is profitable and that's good for us consumers so don't be disappointed' (although as some point out, if we want them to continue supporting our gear, they need to stay afloat). Rather, it's that a lot of people come onto these forums to bitch about specs and then take it a step further - Canon is doomed if they don't produce exactly what I want! That's when the reality check of sales and profitability comes in. Trying to figure out why Canon chooses to do certain things and not others has to be done in light of what has worked for them in the past. They've been pilloried on forums for years for not being cutting edge enough (however people seek to define that), and they have remained the most successful camera brand.

As for why not be more up to date (if indeed they are not - I don't think it's fair either to say their cameras are 5 years behind, nor that most areas of relevant technology have changed much in five years), well again - if they have remained profitable by not using the latest tech, which is presumably more expensive, then why not continue? If I'm selling cakes for a living, and people buy them whether I use basic flour or fancy flour, why would I cut into my margins unnecessarily?

One last point, they have access to information about their own sales which is not released to the public (such as breakdown by model), and lots of feedback from customers, especially professionals. This is again a reason to think that they provide what they do for a reason - they can get it wrong, but the only measure we have of whether they got it right (from their point of view) is sales. None of this is comfort for someone wanting IBIS, say, but that's not really the point.

 

[3kramd5]

We've already had it in this thread, but I'll just repeat the simple extrapolation using the standard scale with 1/3 stop increment (1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.5 4)

-6EV @ f1.2
-5EV @ f1.8
-4EV @ f2.5
-3EV @ f3.5

If 5D4 does -3EV at f2.8, then there's 2/3 stops between f2.8 and f3.5, so R does AF by 2/3 stops better than 5D4. If it somehow corresponds to the dynamic range of the sensor, we're going to get a pretty good sensor at D850 level.

This may be neither here nor there, but there is more to it than light volume. There is also a geometric difference (incident angle of the light rays being sampled), so I’m not sure it’s fair to assume something like “camera x is AF sensitive at -6EV using a f/1.2 lens, therefore it will be AF sensitive at -5EV using an f/1.8 lens.”

 

[Aaron D]

Yes impressive, no IBIS though? Is that Canon being stubborn about lens IS as the best?

The more I think about IBIS the more I'm opposed to it. Seems to me like the sensor should be bolted down—let the lenses correct for shake, and let that shake correction be engineered for the lens at hand. IBIS is a one-size-fits-all solution for lenses from 9mm to 100's of mm. And it's another high-tech thing to go wrong. There are so many complex systems built into modern cameras, why keep adding more. I just sent my main camera body to CPS for repair—and it has no IBIS. Just shut down, dead as a doornail. Yes this is the first time such a thing has happened in my experience, and yes I have a backup. But when you add IBIS you add risk of failure and the very core of you system.

 

[3kramd5]

Canon could have d750 sensor tech AND DPAF if they chose to.

Canon isn’t the only player there. To have d750 sensor tech AND DPAF, both Canon and Sony would have to come to a technology sharing or licensing agreement.

 

[scyrene]

I can't take the picture I want when the scene's dynamic range too far exceeds my expensive, half-decade-ago-technology sensor's dynamic range. When other people standing right next to me are able to get the shot, that's a problem.

Here's something else some of us object to. The difference in DR between the best sensors of Nikon, Sony, and Canon is tiny now - at most around a stop at base ISO. The number of situations where just one extra stop means you can get a shot you couldn't otherwise get is small. These exaggerations - that Canon's tech is ancient and can't do the job, whereas the competition is so much better - are another reason some of the naysayers get short shrift on the forum. Canon cameras produce excellent results in most situaitons, as do all modern cameras, whatever the brand. Pretending there's some yawning chasm between them, and by inference that those people preferring Canon (as some here argue) are sheep, or undiscerning, or just ignorant, is simply rubbish.

 

[Mikehit]

It's easy to understand people that do--they a ton of money invested in a system, and the hassle of selling their gear mixed with the negative returns means that switching systems is a HUGE deal that will cost them a lot of money. It's not a trivial decision. By selling your gear and switching you're starting at a disadvantage. So a 2.000 Sony camera might cost someone 4-5-6,000+ once they lose money on selling used gear. Way way more than that if you have the crazy telephoto lenses. Are the competitors gear so good that they're worth THAT much to switch? For some, sure. for others, no. Not yet at least.

If you are a pro, and you believe the change in gear will pay for all that, then it is worth it. If it is not worth it, the question comes 'how important are those features'? It is a cost-benefit to the photographer: what I find amusing is when someone finds it so important that they talk about being 'betrayed' or 'Canon abusing the customer' and still stay with Canon. Why use gear that you find to upsetting?

And whether a pro or amateur, Even as a non-pro, ith a Sony-EF adapter you can soften the blow considerably

Somehow Apple is the market leader in phones and they can provide excellent service while still giving the best technology on the market year after year. I'm an Android user and I can even admit that. The only reason I don't go Apple is because they don't have the best price. If Canon had high prices, but the best technology, that would be one thing.

Personally I need a lens to be able to take so look at the price of Canon body/lens vs Sony body/lens - there is not much difference.

But when they have high prices and technology several generations behind, some people don't like that. I can use a 40 year old lens and take a good picture. I can't take the picture I want when the scene's dynamic range too far exceeds my expensive, half-decade-ago-technology sensor's dynamic range. When other people standing right next to me are able to get the shot, that's a problem.

There are very few cases where the one stop difference in DR will make that much of a difference - at ISO 800 and above the difference is zero.

 

[3kramd5]

They don't have "DPAF" because that's trademarked by Canon. But they have on sensor phase detect autofocus. Many manufacturers have this. A different version of the same thing.

CMOS and CCD sensors both convert light to charge in order to facilitate imaging. Film likewise turns light into some semi-permanent medium. Are they all different versions of the same thing?

They serve the same function, but they are not the same thing.

Sony has fabricated dual pixel architecture for Samsung smartphones, but they have never used it in their own devices or sold a sensor with it on the open market. It’s therefore safe to assume that they don’t have IP for it and were merely a contract manufacturer to Samsung (who may have licensed it from Canon, but that is pure speculation).

 

[fentiger]

Just about every camera sold has a inbuilt image stabilising system,
if you turn your camera over and look on the base plate you will see a threaded socket.
be amazed all you IBIS moaners, its been there all the time.

 

[degos]

I suppose I was taught to first focus on what I actually need, and then figure out what equipment would allow me to attain the result based on those needs.

And if you don't find such a piece of equipment do you just sit quietly with your hands folded? If so then I commend your discipline.

Most of us, however, like to let Canon 'know' that we're dissatisifed by venting on various fora.

So an interesting exercise would be to start with the EOS R camera and work-back to understand what 'needs' it fulfils. Someone who 'needs' a smaller body but huge lenses and a crippled FPS rate?

 

[Deleted member 378875]

I respect the usability of Canon cameras, and how things "just work". But you don't have to have a camera that's 5 years behind tech-wise to have things just work correctly. Even 1 year is an eternity with modern technology, and they're literally 5 years behind in many areas. There's no excuse if something like their sensor tech can't match the d750 from 4 years ago. They make the most money, they have the biggest potential budget. I hope at least the sensor is better.

The insanely weird "they are in the business of making money, not making cameras with modern specs" argument is just wild. Why on earth, as a consumer, would I be in favor of Canon making a boatload of money, vs. making a more reasonable amount of money and spending a little more of that cash to give me a better product? A camera that gives me the stuff other cameras had 3-5 years ago AS WELL as the cool Canon innovations. They certainly have enough money to do so, that's inarguable. I want the best best camera at the best price. If you are a consumer and you're arguing for Canon's bottom line, you are arguing against yourself in favor of a faceless corporation. That is fanboyism at its worst.

We'll see if this is just a 5DIV sensor. We'll see about the price. The announcement is soon. But no one should be satisfied if this turns out to be another significantly sub-par offering. "Canon is in the business of making money" is not a good argument against anyone's disappointment.

agreed - and very eloquently put too

 

[Scott Smith Photo]

I've read though most of this page and finally signed up to comments so Hi (waves).

I was looking forward to something special from Canon that would maybe put them a nose in front of Sony but as much as I want feel the love for Canon I can't help but think they actually don't have the tech to compete at the moment and that's the real shame.

I know it's unlikely at this stage but please let it be that this is the lower of 2 that they are announcing at the same time like Nikon? And they're keeping the other under wraps till the official announcement?

How much of the things in the EOS R can be added/tweaked with firmware? Fuji have done wonders adding things this way.

I (as in me personally) wanted something to lust after that would also be a great 2nd body for travel, gigs, and weddings alongside my 5DIII, now I'm deflated and wondering if I should get a 5DIV and watch what happens or if it's worth taking a more serious look at Sony and Fuji.

Interesting times even if they're not as exciting as there were last week when I was preparing to sell a kidney.

 

[Terry Danks]

The more I think about IBIS the more I'm opposed to it. Seems to me like the sensor should be bolted down—let the lenses correct for shake, and let that shake correction be engineered for the lens at hand. IBIS is a one-size-fits-all solution for lenses from 9mm to 100's of mm. And it's another high-tech thing to go wrong. There are so many complex systems built into modern cameras, why keep adding more. I just sent my main camera body to CPS for repair—and it has no IBIS. Just shut down, dead as a doornail. Yes this is the first time such a thing has happened in my experience, and yes I have a backup. But when you add IBIS you add risk of failure and the very core of you system.

Same thing was said about IS lenses when Canon first introduced them!

"Wobbly bits in lenses?" Terrible idea!," said the Nikon and Leica enthusiasts.
Time will tell if IBIS is a particular Achilles' heel reliability-wise. As one who actually left Nikon over the IS issue when they lagged introducing VR, I find IBIS a logical and highly desirable feature. Love my 300/2.8L IS and my 600/4L IS but my 180mm, 16-35mm, and 135mm would sure be more useable hand-held with IBIS!

 

[lb]

The af implementation is crazy...
But how do you select all those points without joystick?
No af-linked spot meterin? .. typical canon

Need to know:
Evf pixels/lag
Buffer
4k crop
Anything else?

The Canon wheel has gone from the back, now looks like a Nikon copy except no Joystick as you said, and an old fashioned SD card slot instead of a sturdy xqd card slot, very disappointed with Canon, keeping my hard earned cash, no value added features from the 5D series.?????

 

[BeenThere]

The more I think about IBIS the more I'm opposed to it. Seems to me like the sensor should be bolted down—let the lenses correct for shake, and let that shake correction be engineered for the lens at hand. IBIS is a one-size-fits-all solution for lenses from 9mm to 100's of mm. And it's another high-tech thing to go wrong. There are so many complex systems built into modern cameras, why keep adding more. I just sent my main camera body to CPS for repair—and it has no IBIS. Just shut down, dead as a doornail. Yes this is the first time such a thing has happened in my experience, and yes I have a backup. But when you add IBIS you add risk of failure and the very core of you system.

True enough that the more complex a system is, the more that can go wrong, however, it’s hard to argue that IBIS is not beneficial to images shot at relatively slow shudder speeds using lenses that do not have IS built-in.

 

[ahsanford]

On balance, I'm not seeing the EOS R being referred to as crippled. But I'm also not seeing that it offers significant advantages over a DSLR.

Largely agree, beyond the basic sell of what an EVF/mirrorless held up to your eye offers.

Waiting for how the how the lenses perform with this new mount. Conceivably, (a) these lenses are optimized for DPAF and might be super quick to focus, and (b) that control ring at the front of each lens could offer some interesting uses.

Also, the new controls could be interesting -- it appears to be wildly customizable and that sensor based slider will hopefully be explained to us. Additionally, Folks have been asking for backlit buttons forever, and we may get them here.

- A

 

[nchoh]

hat's completely missing my point. Canon could have d750 sensor tech AND DP

On balance, I'm not seeing the EOS R being referred to as crippled. But I'm also not seeing that it offers significant advantages over a DSLR.

I have seen the word crippled being used to describe the EOS R many times in this thread.

"f/2" means "the aperture is half the focal length".

If everything important in front of the camera is the same (light, distance to different objects in the scene) and the same object is in focus, it's the absolute size (and shape) of the entrance pupil that determines DoF and bokeh effects of the resulting picture. The rays of light that come from the points on the scene toward your sensor do not know the focal length of your lens; all they "know" is that once they pass the entrance pupil, they are in and are forming the image.

If, in addition, the angle of view is the same, it's the absolute size (and shape) of the entrance pupil that determines the intensity of the light hitting the sensor (if there is no light loss between the entrance pupil and the sensor).

CanonFanBoy is correct. Although a f/2 lens is an f/2 lens, a M43 sensor is smaller than a FF sensor and hence M43 f/2 lens is slower than a FF f/2 lens. You have to apply the multiplication factor to get the 35mm equivalent.

 

[unfocused]

Well surely they can cut down the price by $500 if they leave the mirror box and pentaprism out. I'm sure those add about $500 for the price.

So $2990 it is.

And you are sure of this because...

 

[Aaron D]

The Canon wheel has gone from the back, now looks like a Nikon copy except no Joystick as you said, and an old fashioned SD card slot instead of a sturdy xqd card slot, very disappointed with Canon, keeping my hard earned cash, no value added features from the 5D series.?????

Yeah, I hear you. But still, wobbly lenses are in the path of light and not at the plane of the focused image. Just seems more trouble prone. I'd rather we get all lenses up to speed than throw a blanket solution into the body.

 

[neuroanatomist]

CanonFanBoy is correct. Although a f/2 lens is an f/2 lens, a M43 sensor is smaller than a FF sensor and hence M43 f/2 lens is slower than a FF f/2 lens. You have to apply the multiplication factor to get the 35mm equivalent.

Egad, do we really have to go there again? The ‘crop factor’ does not apply to exposure, per se. An f/2 lens on FF, APS-C, m4/3, or an iPhone will have the same exposure settings (shutter speed + aperture + ISO) for a given scene. The smaller the sensor, the more apparent the noise. But the exposure won’t change. The DoF will change, of course, but mainly because if you put the lens in front of a smaller sensor, you need to change the distance to match the framing, farther away with a smaller sensor means a deeper DoF. If you maintain the subject distance and focal length, a given f/number will actually have a shallower DoF on a smaller sensor, because of the difference in circle of confusion. Speaking of circle of confusion, you need to get yourself out of it.