Interview: Understanding the Canon EOS R

Apr 6, 2016
137
0
I’m curious why you don’t use the touchscreen focus drag - I’ve found that I miss it when I’m back on my 5D4 after using my m5. I’ve found it to be much quicker than the joystick.
Big thumbs. Never worked well for me, though I still try from time to time.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,876
122
Vancouver, BC
Why is is 'unsatisfactory'? Equally valid questions are:
Why can't Sony make a decent touch screen interface?
Why can't Sony make a decent waterproofed camera
Why have Sony put an inferior LCD and EVF in the A73?
Why can't Sony put in place a decent after sales network?
Why can't Sony put out a 600mm f4l?
etc
etc
etc

The answer is that different companies have different priorities. Anyone who expects differently is being over-simplistic.
the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality. Higher framerates, FF 4k, and greater dynamic range helps people create whatever they want easier and opens doors to new types of imagery from them.
I disagree, in the context of $2,000+ cameras. There is not a single currently manufactured USD$2,000+ camera sold today that doesn't have amazing image quality, that isn't capable of shooting award-winning photography, photography suitable for print or reportage, commercial photography, or enthusiast photography that would knock your socks off. Not one.

In a world of imperfect choices, it's just up to each buyer to pick their favorite device, and go out there make the magic happen.
 
Oct 22, 2014
60
21
the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality. Higher framerates, FF 4k, and greater dynamic range helps people create whatever they want easier and opens doors to new types of imagery from them.
I had a whole host of anecdotal stories to tell, so here are the shortened versions of a few.

Guy 1: Groom's father. Purchased a Sony A series camera lens combo because he was told it was the best. His battery was dead an hour after he arrived at the wedding. Which is roughly an hour after he told me his camera was superior to my camera and lenses. He walked away when I told him he can photograph the wedding then. First thing he said to me was "I hope you brought spare batteries." Yeah, but I won't need but maybe one other. He scoffed at me and walked away.

Guy 2: Parents purchased him an A7r as a gift. They were told it was the best. He lacked any skill with a camera. We walked along a hiking route photographing waterfalls for a few hours (it was a five mile trail). He initially proclaimed his camera was the best of the best and seemed annoyed when the images on the back of my screen looked better than his.

Guy 3: Actually totally humble about his camera, but got it because he wanted to take good photos of his kids. This camera will end up in a closet in a few months. he'll just use his phone.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because these are literally the same stories inexperienced photographers have been screaming from their mountaintop for years. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, whatever it is. Bottom line: It's probably not the camera, it's your lousy eyes and inexperience.
Now if you told me you were trying to use a 6D as a sports photographer, I'd probably tell you to get a better camera.
And if you think the 5DMIV has issues with Dynamic range, I'm going to just call you an idiot. As such, the EOS R is likely the same. If you're too far to save your photos with what they offer, the Sony isn't going to help you.
 
Jun 6, 2012
202
20
I had a whole host of anecdotal stories to tell, so here are the shortened versions of a few.

Guy 1: Groom's father. Purchased a Sony A series camera lens combo because he was told it was the best. His battery was dead an hour after he arrived at the wedding. Which is roughly an hour after he told me his camera was superior to my camera and lenses. He walked away when I told him he can photograph the wedding then. First thing he said to me was "I hope you brought spare batteries." Yeah, but I won't need but maybe one other. He scoffed at me and walked away.

Guy 2: Parents purchased him an A7r as a gift. They were told it was the best. He lacked any skill with a camera. We walked along a hiking route photographing waterfalls for a few hours (it was a five mile trail). He initially proclaimed his camera was the best of the best and seemed annoyed when the images on the back of my screen looked better than his.

Guy 3: Actually totally humble about his camera, but got it because he wanted to take good photos of his kids. This camera will end up in a closet in a few months. he'll just use his phone.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because these are literally the same stories inexperienced photographers have been screaming from their mountaintop for years. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, whatever it is. Bottom line: It's probably not the camera, it's your lousy eyes and inexperience.
Now if you told me you were trying to use a 6D as a sports photographer, I'd probably tell you to get a better camera.
And if you think the 5DMIV has issues with Dynamic range, I'm going to just call you an idiot. As such, the EOS R is likely the same. If you're too far to save your photos with what they offer, the Sony isn't going to help you.
I am just saying the point of new technology and features. I am not hear saying a person can or cant do a job. There are different sides to this. from ergonomics. reliability, image quality, and image features. A lot of people care about the latter two above all. I just thought the dude's comparison was kinda weak.
 
Two things.

1.) I'm not trying to defend Sony. I'm not implying Sony is the best. My statements are referring to Canons position among all camera manufacturers right now. In fact, I'm looking at both nikon and sony right now as they seem to be the best options for me.

2.) In terms of sensor performance, I'm looking for more high iso performance and dynamic range. I do mostly low light and high iso stuff (concerts, events, etc.). I have worked with my canon raw files and also sony A7III raw files. Say what you want, but the Sony files are much better quality and offer much more workability in post for my purposes.
I also happen to do mostly low light and high iso stuff (concerts mainly). My rule of thumb is "if you cannot get it right at the first place, you cannot force it to become right in post", no matter what you do: push or pull or squeeze it! Therefore, I try to use a camera that gives me the most usable straight-out-of-camera shots. Surprisingly, the 5DSR, which is often unfairly criticized for its low light performance, gives me more usable low light shots with better colors at its highest native ISO (after resizing to say 24Mpix) compared to whatever else there. If you look for workability in post, there should be something wrong with the steps preceding the post in your process!
Perhaps the same argument follows for your need for FF 4K and HD 120p.
 
Last edited:

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,074
277
the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality. Higher framerates, FF 4k, and greater dynamic range helps people create whatever they want easier and opens doors to new types of imagery from them.
So despite 10 years of domination in the quality of image sensors, why have neither Sony not Nikon take top spot? The only and I mean 'only) logical reason is that sensor quality is not top of peoples' requirements when buying a camera. Even Canon is 'good enough'
And don't spin that 'Canon have a huge legacy out there' line because in those 10 years, there have been a lot of people new to photography and a lot of old users dying and by your logic Nikon/Sony should have mopped them up.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,074
277
I disagree, in the context of $2,000+ cameras. There is not a single currently manufactured USD$2,000+ camera sold today that doesn't have amazing image quality, that isn't capable of shooting award-winning photography, photography suitable for print or reportage, commercial photography, or enthusiast photography that would knock your socks off. Not one.

In a world of imperfect choices, it's just up to each buyer to pick their favorite device, and go out there make the magic happen.
I agree. I was just pointing out that sensor quality is just one choiceto be made when buying a camera, and slamming Canon for poor technology when there are so many areas they do have 'modern technology' is quite pathetic. As I said, each company chooses the priorities in design - Sony majors on high tech with poor ergonomics, CaNikon concentrate on high quality with good ergonomics.
All three will converge and in 3-4 years I doubt there will be little useable difference between them.

The interesting one is Panasonic as they seem headed to have superior sensor to Canon but superior ergonomics to Sony.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Talys

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,074
277
I am just saying the point of new technology and features. I am not hear saying a person can or cant do a job. There are different sides to this. from ergonomics. reliability, image quality, and image features. A lot of people care about the latter two above all. I just thought the dude's comparison was kinda weak.
As above, i was merely pointing out that Canon also has class-leading technology. but it seems with many gear heads, the definition of technology is 'the sensor' so anything that is not 'the sensor' is blithely ignored.
Do I wish the Canon had the quality of the Sony sensor? Yes.
Am I willing to forego Canon ergonomics to get one? Nope.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,876
122
Vancouver, BC
I agree. I was just pointing out that sensor quality is just one choiceto be made when buying a camera, and slamming Canon for poor technology when there are so many areas they do not have 'modern technology' is quite pathetic. As I said, each company chooses the priorities in design - Sony majors on high tech with poor ergonomics, CaNikon concentrate on high quality with good ergonomics.
All three will converge and in 3-4 years I doubt there will be little useable difference between them.

The interesting one is Panasonic as they seem headed to have superior sensor to Canon but superior ergonomics to Sony.
Totally. In a few years, the feature game will even out. I believe, that companies like Nikon and Olympus have filed DPAF or DPAF-like patents, and I have no doubt that IBIS and uncropped 4k will eventually come to Canon. Maybe at some point in there, Sony will even make a touch screen interface that lets you tap buttons and pan, pinch, and zoom photos.

Then it will come down to the same things that have separated DSLRs. Which system offers the most attractive price points versus feature set that I want? Which system has the specific lenses that I want, and at the best prices? Which system feels the best in my hands and am I the happiest using? Which system has the most/best third party accessories? Is anything a big enough difference for me to change from the system that I'm currently using?
 
Likes: Jack Douglas

Hector1970

EOS Rebel T7i
Mar 22, 2012
869
22
I’d agree with the sentiments that most modern cameras are capable of producing great images. Even the micro 4/3 cameras are excellent.
The major limiting factor is the photographer.
I am interested in mirrorless but I’m waiting for something better than the 5DIV. The EOS R is not bad but strikes me as a first attempt and that Canon could do better with future versions.
I think Canon make great cameras and have a loyal base. To continue to exist they need to keep capturing new photographers. They are gaining a reputation for not being at the forefront of technology in sensors and video. This doesn’t bother me too much but matters more to new entrants who perhaps have no experience of Canon and just read reviews. Canon need to be wary of that. It’s glass however has always been excellent and sustains a lot of its business.
 
Likes: Jack Douglas

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,255
111
UK
www.flickr.com
...and even that has its own set of pros and cons. Pros are obvious, some cons: worse high ISO performance, increased difficulty of getting sharp images, greater demand on lenses.

In the right conditions (and with the right “technique”), a 5DSR type camera can be head and shoulders above the rest. But in a suboptimal environment, I’d rather have a crisp (if lesser detailed) smaller 30 or 24MP image than a blurry or fuzzy 50MP one
It's worth pointing out that blur due to camera motion only shows more on higher resolution sensors viewed 1:1, because essentially you are magnifying the image more. At the image level, the same amount of shake will have the same impact. Ditto diffraction. Essentially, if X movement doesn't give you a 'blurry or fuzzy' *image* at 24MP, it won't at any higher resolution either. You're just able to resolve it better when zoomed in.
 
Jul 16, 2017
77
11
Hamburg, Germany
they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality.
In Marketing, there is a concept that tries to link features of a product to the overall perception of the product.

Each feature can be implemented with a certain quality (for example Dynamic range 10 stops vs 12 vs 14) and a curve describes how much increasing the features quality impacts the product's total quality.

I would argue that this curve is specific to certain markets. What you said may be true for some people. For them, the sensor quality curve goes straight on forever.

But for many others, it plateaus past a certain point. You don't get much of a benefit from 10 vs 100 fps, for example, if you only shoot astro photography, where exposure times greater than a second are the only thing you use. And dynamic range is nice, but past some point, it gets hard to find cases where more of it actually produces nicer pictures.

Based on their curve shape, features are separated in expected features and excitement features. Expected ones impact product receiption negatively if they are not present or present in a low quality, but don't do much for the product in terms of excitement past a certain point. Excitement features are the opposite.

What this amounts to is that without expected features, you automatically have a negative receiption but without excitement onces, your product is at least not bad.

I think the curves are different for different users. For me, ergonomics are definitivly a a expected feature. I wouldn't want a cramped camera like my old 600D again - but I don't need more than my 80D with the decent grip and Touchscreen offers. Same for dynamic range. The 6DII doesn't offer what I'd like to see at that price point, but my 80D has never disappointed me so far. When it couldn't keep up with a scenes DR, the picture would have been a poor picture anyway due to bad lighting.

More Frames per second or high iso Performance on the other hand would be exciting to me - my 80D is good enough for, but more would still be nicer, just because.

I don't think your Statement that people would accept pain as a trade of for Image quality is something that can be said about any group of relevant size. Just look at the Smartphone photographers - they can't even accept a little weight or size for that. Image quality is 'good enough' for them, or at least not exciting enough to compensate for the effect of size and weight.
 
Likes: pj1974
Apr 29, 2012
166
26
the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality. Higher framerates, FF 4k, and greater dynamic range helps people create whatever they want easier and opens doors to new types of imagery from them.
Who exactly are these people you're talking about? You think people who spend large portions of their working life with a camera in their hands would use something that causes them physical pain for a marginal increase in image quality? Really??

And frankly, who knows what you mean by image quality anyway... Resolution? DR? At base ISO or elsewhere? High ISO performance? Colour reproduction? Noise characterisitics? And that's before you get to the fact that any image taken through a lens has a range of qualities attributable to the lens not the sensor.

That you think frame rate is something to do with image quality doesn't help your case, and frankly, what does full frame 4k have to do with image quality? I guess the Sony F55, Panasonic Varicam, Red Helium, Arri Alexa/Amira and and C700 must all be woefully inadequate video cameras as they dont have full frame sensors? Well I guess those fools in Hollywood just haven't realised it yet, but you've clearly got it all worked out.

I'm inclined to think that when you said 'people' you meant to say 'idiots'. Idiots want the 'best image quality' and are willing to endure pain to get it. Except they don't actually know what it is they want. And if they did, they'd probably be buying medium format stills cameras and cinema cameras for video. Except I guess that's too much image quality. So maybe this mythical thing isn't actually so important anyway. So why are these people willing to endure pain throughout most of their working life for this thing they don't really need? Because they're idiots.
 
Likes: pj1974

Firillu

Zika Virus
Feb 16, 2017
13
5
Pluto
EOS R is not a bad camera, it's just not a great camera. And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/
I think you nailed it, very sensible comment. Your last sentence sums it up nicely.

I'm not selling my Canon gear yet.. I've been a sole Canon user for 35 years, but for the first time, I'm looking around and keeping an eye on other brands.
 

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,360
399
the things you named are like the least things most peopel care about. I think the number one concern with people is image quality. they would get a camera that hurts their hands for the best image quality.
In that context, explain the fact that Sony and Nikon have delivered APS-C and FF ILCs with better base ISO sensor metrics continuously since ~2009, yet Canon has dominated the ILC market that entire time, with their current ~49% global ILC market share exceeding that of Nikon and Sony combined. (Don't worry, I'm not expecting a response since the only appropriate one would be "I was wrong," and I doubt you'll admit that.)

In reality, you (along with some other forum members) need to come to grips with the fact that your personal priorities are not necessarily aligned with those of the broader market.
 
Likes: pj1974

neuroanatomist

Spends too much time on this forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,360
399
EOS R is not a bad camera, it's just not a great camera. And at it's price point, it offers poor value. :/
I think you nailed it, very sensible comment. Your last sentence sums it up nicely.
The EOS R sits between the 6DII and the 5DIV in the lineup based on features, has a 5DIV-like sensor, but is only 15% more expensive than the 6DII. Calling it a poor value is not sensible, it's nonsensical.
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,255
111
UK
www.flickr.com
I'm looking for higher dynamic range and better high iso performance, IBIS or IS in EVERY lens, 1080p 120fps, 4k with minimal crop.
You've been unlucky in that your wishlist is precisely the things they left out. But no camera can offer everything everyone wants.

You keep talking about high ISO performance though... Canon's is no worse there than anyone else, is it?

Defend Canon all you want. They are behind the competition in many aspects regarding modern mirrorless features and performance. It's quite clear at this point.
Apart from the things listed above, what other aspects are they behind in? "Many aspects" sounds like you're overstating your case. You didn't get what you wanted, I understand the disappointment. But you're doing what a few on these forums have for years - generalising from the specific. "They're behind because they don't offer the features I want that others do" (not ahead because they offer features I don't want that others don't) is a flawed argument, and people rebutting it aren't 'defending Canon', they're reminding you of reality.
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,255
111
UK
www.flickr.com
What I would like to understand better is how the introduction of the RF mount affects the future of the EF-M mount. My understanding is that electrically EF-M is basically the same as EF. That means EF-M can't enjoy many of the features that RF can. Will Canon still develop the EOS-M series, or is it dead?
The question is, what is EF-M for? From what we can tell, it's for smaller size (and perhaps lower price). Replacing EF-M with RF abolishes that advantage. Smaller size adds other restrictions - so if EF-M lenses don't get certain features RF lenses do, that's because the latter are more premium products, prioritising aspects other than size.
 
Likes: nchoh
Oct 22, 2014
60
21
I also happen to do mostly low light and high iso stuff (concerts mainly). My rule of thumb is "if you cannot get it right at the first place, you cannot force it to become right in post", no matter what you do: push or pull or squeeze it! Therefore, I try to use a camera that gives me the most usable straight-out-of-camera shots. Surprisingly, the 5DSR, which is often unfairly criticized for its low light performance, gives me more usable low light shots with better colors at its highest native ISO (after resizing to say 24Mpix) compared to whatever else there. If you look for workability in post, there should be something wrong with the steps preceding the post in your process!
Perhaps the same argument follows for your need for FF 4K and HD 120p.
Nah, FF4K has a serious point. Mainly being, getting he most out of the lenses. Cropping that heavily is a tough pill to swallow for those wanting especially wide shots. Though, probably not the biggest deal for those looking to shoot distant nature.