Interview: Understanding the Canon EOS R

[Random Orbits]

funny how some people need to divert from sensor performance or lack of some video features whenever criticism is voiced.

some of the "senior" staff here is arguing for 6 years that way, as i noticed reading older posts lately.

just saying "yes canon lacks in sensor performance compared to sony and i wish they would be as good" is not possible for some people.
"i wish canon would have IBIS and 4K without a heavy crop".... not possible to say for some.

or at least be open minded that other people want these features. nope... they need to divert to lens collection, market share, ergonomics, support.
it is an instant reflex for some.

some people don´t see all the benefits in canon cameras but sure some other people here won´t acknowledge shortcomings either (some may do with grinding teeth).

and it´s always the same arguments from both sides..... for 6, maybe 7 years.
and they all claim they are not fanboys ... LOL
you don´t waste your live writing 10000+ post on a GEAR forum when you are not a BRAND fanboy.


by the way:

i think the EOS R is a nice camera for my needs (won´t buy it because i have a 5D MK4). if i had no 5D MK4 i would wait until it is 200 euro cheaper.
but i saw some videos that showed some ugly banding when pushing shadows. noticable worse than the 5D MK4.

And some people think that repeated criticism of the same points that many people have already brought up is a great idea when there are already multiple threads that span dozens of pages going over the same ground again and again and again... Face it, the topic is sensitive to people because some have used inflammatory language to say that Canon was obsolete/will go out of business if they don't have "x" feature, and over the years, it has not proven true. How many userids have minimal number of comments criticizing Canon and that's it? Probably hundreds if not thousands... many people do like trolling this forum. Not realizing that and starting another thread to say the same thing... well, is it any wonder that it brings hostile comments? Longtime members know each other, and criticism from one on a topic will not bring the same response because we know where they stand -- they're not trolls.

Canon's greatest advantage is its glass. Its lenses are excellent and many of them are much cheaper than their Nikon and Sony counterparts. Take a look at the price differences for the 70-200, 400 f/2.8s, etc.

Yes, it would be great if Canon can design and produce sensors as efficient as Sony, but I'm glad that Canon is still doing it on it's own. A monopoly on sensor technology is not good in the long run.

I too have a 5DIV, and I'm intrigued by what Canon is doing with the R system. I'll wait for a R body that is better than the 5DIV, but the 28-70 and 50 RF lenses are intriguing. Now that Canon and Nikon have mirrorless entries that will stem the defections to Sony, it'll put more pressure on Sony to find new ways to grow... especially now that Panasonic is intending to win the video front with 8K by 2020.

 

[ScottO]

Call me the Canon fanboy if you’d like, the only cameras I now own are Canon. However in the past two years I have owned two Sony a7 series cameras as well as rented multiple Nikon platforms for testing. Over the years I’ve shot 35mm, medium format, and large format cameras by many manufacturers and I’m still with Canon. I often shoot with people who shoot both Nikon and Sony and they keep asking me why are your image always sharper than mine when we often use the same tripod in exactly the same position. How do you manage to get those colors without spending hours in post. So I take exception to statements that Canon is behind in any area compared to Sony and Nikon.

The EOS R may not be a camera for everyone for every purpose I certainly wouldn’t take it to shoot the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds. However I would not feel ill-equipped using it on statics at any air show. I have two on order to replace a couple of aging 5D Mark iv’s. It may not have the specs that some of you wish but I know having had just a few minutes hands-on with the camera it’s going to be a solid and productive platform for me and for anyone else that can see past the spec list.

Viva the revolution

 

[Mikehit]

"When developing the EOS R, we looked at all the hardware we had in the pipeline. When we look at the image processor and CMOS sensors that we have — we have restrictions, unfortunately, and that’s why we ended up with the 1.7x crop."

Then stopping using your own sensors. the 1.74x crop was bad back in 2016, what makes you think it's fine in 2018? If your sensors are the bottleneck, use something else.

Bottleneck to what?
Can you show me any evidence that their policy has so far hurt them and led to a decrease in their global market share.

I am sure you will make vague claims as to what drives the market, or produce some numbers from a single market sub-section and extrapolate that to supporting any claim that Canon are doomed but let's talk real supportable data.

 

[transpo1]

A point of view could be that Canon isn't the n°1 camera company. It's Apple. Dedicated cameras (whether for video or stills) represent only a tiny percentage of the overall imaging sensor market. Canon may dominate the camera market, but their share of the imaging sensors market fell at 3% in 2016 - and most likely even lower today (vs more than 9% in 2012) : https://www.vision-systems.com/arti...nsors-expand-machine-vision-applications.html
It's even lower now than Panasonic .
I guess that this is one of the reasons why Canon decided in 2016 to sell sensors to third parties.

Agreed- the reality is that Apple is the #1 camera company in the world- but because their cameras fall into the smartphone category, we don't "count" it here. It is worth noting, however, that Sony is currently a major supplier of their sensors. The iPhone X has a Sony made sensor.

 

[transpo1]

As a video producer, I'd ideally like a 1.4x or 1.5x crop to match the C200 I use as an A camera. Not a FF camera. I certainly dont care about 60fps, which the A camera does, but is probably used less than 1% of the time on it. Most important feature in a B camera for interviews etc for me would be reliable AF as I wouldn't be operating it a lot of the time. Which would rule out everyone but Canon at the moment. I'd also really like the colour science to match my A camera, so if I had an FS7 I'd think about an A7s and if I had an EVA1 I'd look at the GH5. But I don't feel the need for a B camera 90% of the time, and if I did I'd take one of the C100s or the 5d4 with me.

B cameras for production companies and indie filmmakers is not a mass market. It's a very small niche. Understanding things like this is why Canon sells lots of cameras.

People (including me) loved using the 5Dm2 for picture only work (music videos etc, not really documentaries) not just because of the large sensor, but because it made interchangable lens systems for video affordable for small independents. Suddenly you could use fast primes, TSEs, macros, superteles etc to create all kinds of images that previously required serious amounts of money (whether shooting 16/35mm film or something like the old Red One). And the low light performance (especially with an f1.2/f1.4 prime) blew away the EX1/HVX200 style cameras that we'd been using before then.

Looking back to the 5DMii, it had relatively soft 1080p video with horrible moire, hell, at launch you couldn't even change aperture in video mode, let alone record at 120fps, IBIS, 4K, DPAF etc. It was used on features, tv etc... And you think the R is going to be unuable as a B cam?

If you cant take inspiring images with just about any contemporary camera the problem isn't the camera. Sorry.

Usually, the problem isn't the camera- you're right. Operator error or lack of vision. That's never been my problem, though

With the 5DII, I got hooked on that FF look. And you're right- it is soft 1080p video- but the FF look made me overlook that, as it was (back then), the only camera capable of it.

But you completely missed the point-

Now, even in 2018, the 4K from the 5DIV and EOS-R, even with the 1.7x crop is still soft. When you compare it to a Sony FF or a Fuji (1.5x crop), the Canon 4K video quality is noticeably inferior. So your claim about operator error being the issue glosses over a consistent issue with Canon's video quality- apparently limited by sensor and processor technology in their still cameras. I don't know about your video quality standards, but when I see the 4K video coming out of the EOS-R or the 5D despite their superior focusing systems and ergonomics, I am not impressed. And crappy video is not inspiring.

As for the overall merits of FF video-

Most of the time, in the cinema world, APS-C or Super 35mm cameras and sensors are more than adequate for the purposes of storytelling. However, there is a magic quality to the FF look. Which is why Sony has come out with the Venice, Arri has come out with the ALEXA LF (Large Format), why RED has the Monstro, and why Canon has released the EOS C700 FF. People love the FF look- I'm not the only one.

So, in other words, almost all the major cinema camera manufacturers, including Canon, disagree with you. Sorry

 

[transpo1]

It seems that you are quite expert in video with ML/DSLR cameras and strong opinion against 4K crop. So please tell me what is wrong with the crop? You want exact 4K pixels and you get exact 4K pixels. Field of view is narrower that FF, so what? It is supposed to be narrower because it is meant to match that of what you can get from a Super-35 "pro" camera. Want wider view? Use wider lenses. Want shallow DoF? Use faster lenses. Want to stand in front of camera and shoot yourself? Well that is where the usability gets a question mark and complaints arise!

I have nothing against APS-C or Super 35 but when I buy a FF stills camera I also want my 4K video to be FF- otherwise, you have to adjust for composition by zooming out or changing lenses while using it. That's a very simple answer to your question

 

[BeenThere]

Usually, the problem isn't the camera- you're right. Operator error or lack of vision. That's never been my problem, though

With the 5DII, I got hooked on that FF look. And you're right- it is soft 1080p video- but the FF look made me overlook that, as it was (back then), the only camera capable of it.

But you completely missed the point-

Now, even in 2018, the 4K from the 5DIV and EOS-R, even with the 1.7x crop is still soft. When you compare it to a Sony FF or a Fuji (1.5x crop), the Canon 4K video quality is noticeably inferior. So your claim about operator error being the issue glosses over a consistent issue with Canon's video quality- apparently limited by sensor and processor technology in their still cameras. I don't know about your video quality standards, but when I see the 4K video coming out of the EOS-R or the 5D despite their superior focusing systems and ergonomics, I am not impressed. And crappy video is not inspiring.

As for the overall merits of FF video-

Most of the time, in the cinema world, APS-C or Super 35mm cameras and sensors are more than adequate for the purposes of storytelling. However, there is a magic quality to the FF look. Which is why Sony has come out with the Venice, Arri has come out with the ALEXA LF (Large Format), why RED has the Monstro, and why Canon has released the EOS C700 FF. People love the FF look- I'm not the only one.

So, in other words, almost all the major cinema camera manufacturers, including Canon, disagree with you. Sorry

It looks like there are plenty of “Magic” video cameras for you to select from. The canon R is clearly not for you.

 

[scyrene]

"When developing the EOS R, we looked at all the hardware we had in the pipeline. When we look at the image processor and CMOS sensors that we have — we have restrictions, unfortunately, and that’s why we ended up with the 1.7x crop."

Then stopping using your own sensors. the 1.74x crop was bad back in 2016, what makes you think it's fine in 2018? If your sensors are the bottleneck, use something else.

Because it would cost them more (maybe - at least they'd be paying a supplier), and I assume they don't think the crop will lose them so many customers that it matters for sales. And competition is good, right? If all sensors were made by the same company, we'd all lose out (no?)

 

[SaP34US]

For entering FF that not be as much problem for since they would Anything othe then EF-S lens. However I would the 35 mm Macro lens and other Efs glass until can afford EF glass.

 

[dak723]

... If everyone was informed about all the current cameras equally about the specs and features, they knew what they wanted to do with them, didn't have brand loyalty, and had some cash to spar for a new camera and lenses, the sales numbers would be vastly different. There is a reason why people go to other brands, they simply did their homework, have the money, and isn't afraid to switch.

\

No offense, but what a bunch of crap. How dare you insinuate that people who stay with Canon are ignorant or don't do their homework. You cannot seem to grasp the concept that other photographers differ from you. That other photographers may have different priorities or needs than you. When looking for a new camera a number of years ago, I didn't just do my homework - I either rented or bought different cameras. In the end, I bought a Canon 6D. When I wanted a crop camera as well, I ended up with both an Olympus E-M1 and a Canon SL1. My first camera was an Olympus, and while fond of that camera (OM-1) I didn't have any brand loyalty. I had no brand loyalty to Canon whatsoever. I do not own a collection of old glass, so existing lenses played no part in my buying decisions.

At some point after joining CR, I began to read post after post about Sony and their superiority. So, once agin, going beyond doing y homework, I bought the A7 II to compare with my 6D. In terms of what I was most interested in a camera, the Sony was probably the worst camera/lens combination that I have ever owned. In terms of ergonomics, color, viewfinder, tonal curves and overall IQ, the Canon was superior in every way (so was the Olympus). The Sony undersexposd by 1 1/2 stops, which did not give me any confidence in any other aspect of the camera. In many cases, the differences were small, in others, more pronounced. Not being able to afford the over $1000 lenses that Sony offers, I used the kit lens (actually tried two of them). They were awful. Whether it was due to the lens or the short flange distance I cannot know for sure, but I suspect the latter.

Now, I have no issue with anyone buying the camera that best suits their needs - that is, of course, what everyone should do. If DR is the most important thing for you and you find that Sony lifts shadows better, then by all means you should get a Sony. If certain video features are your highest priority, then get the brand that meets your needs. But, please, don't assume your needs are the same as anyone else's. Or that "doing your homework" leads anyone else to the same conclusion that you reach. And if "doing your homework" involves only reading revfiews on the internet or viewing YouTube videos, then your opinion is pretty much meaningless considering the number of reveiws that are intentionally biased. I tried various cameras and chose Canon. Sorry to disprove your comments.

 

[transpo1]

It looks like there are plenty of “Magic” video cameras for you to select from. The canon R is clearly not for you.

Thanks- you really added a lot to the conversation.

 

[bhf3737]

As for the overall merits of FF video-
Most of the time, in the cinema world, APS-C or Super 35mm cameras and sensors are more than adequate for the purposes of storytelling. However, there is a magic quality to the FF look. Which is why Sony has come out with the Venice, Arri has come out with the ALEXA LF (Large Format), why RED has the Monstro, and why Canon has released the EOS C700 FF. People love the FF look- I'm not the only one.

So, in other words, almost all the major cinema camera manufacturers, including Canon, disagree with you. Sorry

Yes, you get great FF look from dedicated video cameras that cost +40K.
or -- you get crap FF look mixed with jello and soft cream from ML/DSLR cameras that cost 2-6K.
or -- you get good cropped (super 35) look from dedicated video cameras that cost 5-15K.
or -- you get semi-crap cropped look from ML/DSLR cameras that cost 1-4K.
the choice is on the user of each of these options.

 

[transpo1]

Yes, you get great FF look from dedicated video cameras that cost +40K.
or -- you get crap FF look mixed with jello and soft cream from ML/DSLR cameras that cost 2-6K.
or -- you get good cropped (super 35) look from dedicated video cameras that cost 5-15K.
or -- you get semi-crap cropped look from ML/DSLR cameras that cost 1-4K.
the choice is on the user of each of these options.

I don't believe you're up to date on the video quality achievable on mirrorless (and some DSLR) cameras.

 

[pgrillone]

I think it's just a matter of curiosity. But I Agree. Canon is likely going to be behind for quite some time. If we want/need modern features and performance, we have to face the fact that we must move on.

Totally agree, CANON isn't even on par with the current DLSR market, why would we expect them to all of a sudden stand up and be noticed in the mirrorless market.

 

[pgrillone]

The only thing at photkina that made the Nikon Z7 look good was the Canon R. Fuji is totally walking away with photokina.

 

[Mikehit]

Totally agree, CANON isn't even on par with the current DLSR market, why would we expect them to all of a sudden stand up and be noticed in the mirrorless market.

Really? Do you care to expand on that?

 

[pgrillone]

Really? Do you care to expand on that?

you know Im in a unique position, I use a Canon 5d Mk IV, I also use a Nikon d850 and a Sony A7R3. Each has its merits. Sorry to tell you but the Canon is the least used.


I love Canon glass, and use a ton of it. but i would put the canon glass on the sony with an adapter before I would use it on the 5d. All I wanted to see was Canon release a Mirrorless camera with the same EF mount and great video. I would have sold the Sony and the 5D and bought the new one. Dont care about card slots, I shoot tethered.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Really? Do you care to expand on that?

Be careful not to deplete your stock of troll food…

 

[Mikehit]

you know Im in a unique position, I use a Canon 5d Mk IV, I also use a Nikon d850 and a Sony A7R3. Each has its merits. Sorry to tell you but the Canon is the least used.


I love Canon glass, and use a ton of it. but i would put the canon glass on the sony with an adapter before I would use it on the 5d. All I wanted to see was Canon release a Mirrorless camera with the same EF mount and great video. I would have sold the Sony and the 5D and bought the new one. Dont care about card slots, I shoot tethered.

But the Sony is not a DSLR. Or did that pass you by?

 

[pgrillone]

so is all you have to reply with are one liners? TROLL