POLL? How many are preordering the EOS R?

Mikehit

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,074
277
Never mind that whole C700 4K full frame thing :p
In DSLRs. Look at the heat sinking involved for the C700 - that is how Canon do it properly. They do not have the processing capacity in the sensor nor in the processor to do it in a DSALR without risking heating issues.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,573
124
In DSLRs. Look at the heat sinking involved for the C700 - that is how Canon do it properly. They do not have the processing capacity in the sensor nor in the processor to do it in a DSALR without risking heating issues.
I don’t know that I buy they *can’t*, or that the limitation is thermal, but my post was a bit tongue in cheek anyway.
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
941
122
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
i do NOT consider imaging gear as "pro", only because it has an FF sensor inside. :)

No acceptable reason, why a camera with pedestrian specs like EOS R [minus video recording st*ff] should not be available as low as 999,-
Well, Canon haven't launched a DSLR without video since the 5D Mark II was released in 2008, so the chances of them doing a camera without video just for you are pretty close to zero.

Also, the video recording stuff probably adds only a tiny fraction to the cost of the camera. It certainly wouldn't reduce the price by 50% or more :ROFLMAO:
 
Feb 6, 2015
80
2
I am glad Canon released the 28-70 f/2. It is a statement lens. Perhaps you are right and the final market might not be large (I think it will be large, btw). But I am glad to see Canon making statements showing what they can do in general, and, more specifically, what they can do with a new mount. 50 f/1.2...another statement. Granted, it is really similar to the Sigma 50A...so that is a bit of a one up (f/1.2) and mostly a "me too" statement. But I am still glad to see Canon putting out a lens like that.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Agree
 
Feb 6, 2015
80
2
It's not 'crippled'. Canon have made it clear that they do not believe they have the technology to deliver FF downsampled to 4K with the reliability they want to deliver. That isn't 'crippled' that is called not being able to do it.

Why do you assume someone who disagrees with you, or points out the failure in your logic, is working for Canon? Do you come here and criticise Canon because you work for Sony?

For me, Canon spend their dollar on things I would rather use than video.
I don't work for Sony. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
 
Aug 11, 2016
111
8
I'd like to wait and see. Not because of its recent EOS R release, but more specifically how they plan to slot in upcoming RF lenses and its impact on EF lenses. Selfishly, I had hoped that a native EF mount EOS R would have been ideal for my own needs. I would have continued to leverage my investment in EF lenses on my BM/DSMC2 bodies, while eventually transitioning back to Canon from Sony for my hybrid bodies over the next 2 years or so instead of maintaining two lens systems. Had the EOS R been more competent in its video performance, I would have even considered adapters to start, but as it stands, there is some real functionality that I use all the time that is entirely missing compounded with the uncertainty of Canon's lens ecosystem.

For now, I'll wait for the rumored EOS R pro-body in the next 6+ months at which point I might be able to glean some additional clarity on how all of this plays out. Canon really made a statement with its starting group of lenses, but it seems misplaced, at least currently with what they had to show with their first mirrorless release. Now that I'm also shooting Sony, I'm sure the A7Siii will also be a compelling upgrade for my needs as well in the near future.

On a side note, in terms of Canon's EOS Cinema lineup, will future C200II, C300 cinema bodies have the option of supporting RF? When I was shooting a C200, the 24-105II was excellent w/ DPAF, but some lenses were clunky. I would assume all RF lenses would be consistent, fully supporting DPAF with quick and smooth AF and aperture adjustments. More questions than answers at this point...
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,573
124
On a side note, in terms of Canon's EOS Cinema lineup, will future C200II, C300 cinema bodies have the option of supporting RF?
That would be a seemingly trivial option (different front end and perhaps different interface PCB), but I suppose much of it depends on the market success of the RF lenses.
 
Aug 11, 2016
111
8
That would be a seemingly trivial option (different front end and perhaps different interface PCB), but I suppose much of it depends on the market success of the RF lenses.
Agreed. I do believe a native RF mount would make more sense than an EF mount that cannot mount RF lenses.
 
Nov 12, 2016
264
58
Ugh, look at about one minute into this video. Yes granted recovering a photo 5 stops is never advisable, but this does not look good. I did not expect to give up anything on the EOS R compared to the 5D4 image quality wise. This may not be the case in actuality.

 

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,573
124
Ugh, look at about one minute into this video. Yes granted recovering a photo 5 stops is never advisable, but this does not look good. I did not expect to give up anything on the EOS R compared to the 5D4 image quality wise. This may not be the case in actuality.

If it’s the same sensor, but the entire signal chain from read out to processing is continually exercised in order to feed the viewfinder in one and not the other, it stands to reason that there will be more heat generated in the former, and therefore more noise/lower dynamic range unless there is better management of that heat.
 
Likes: gwooding
Nov 12, 2016
264
58
If it’s the same sensor, but the entire signal chain from read out to processing is continually exercised in order to feed the viewfinder in one and not the other, it stands to reason that there will be more noise associated with heat in the former, thus lower dynamic range
I'm pretty disappointed by this. With the increased ISO range, I expected lower noise, not more. And yes, I understand that high ISO noise is different from noise pushing a dark photo to the extreme at lower ISO, but I'm weary of how well shadows will be able to be recovered on the EOS R compared to the 5D4 under any conditions based on this. :cautious:

And again I know pushing a photo 5 stops is never ideal. But where the flaws are readily apparent after pushing 5 stops, I worry that they'll begin to creep in sooner, at a level where you would normally push a file.
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,436
75
Ugh, look at about one minute into this video. Yes granted recovering a photo 5 stops is never advisable, but this does not look good. I did not expect to give up anything on the EOS R compared to the 5D4 image quality wise. This may not be the case in actuality.

I am sorry, I couldn't watch it. Thirty seconds in was enough.
When they do not have enough expertise to get their sound right on a review video how can I take this as a reliable source.
An understanding and ability to use the mediums they are reviewing is mandatory IMO for any amount of credibility.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,115
115
118
And again I know pushing a photo 5 stops is never ideal. But where the flaws are readily apparent after pushing 5 stops, I worry that they'll begin to creep in sooner, at a level where you would normally push a file.
What level would you normally push a file? That answers your question.

Personally I find talk of five stop lifts laughable, and always have. I have never seen an image from any camera where that level of adjustment leads to a good result, but that's just me. For a lower level of adjustment, particularly in the shadows there isn't going to be a meaningful difference between the 5D MkIV and the R, if you are happy with the adjustments you do to a 5D MkIV RAW file you will be equally happy with an R RAW file.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,573
124
I'm pretty disappointed by this. With the increased ISO range, I expected lower noise, not more. And yes, I understand that high ISO noise is different from noise pushing a dark photo to the extreme at lower ISO, but I'm weary of how well shadows will be able to be recovered on the EOS R compared to the 5D4 under any conditions based on this. :cautious:

And again I know pushing a photo 5 stops is never ideal. But where the flaws are readily apparent after pushing 5 stops, I worry that they'll begin to creep in sooner, at a level where you would normally push a file.
I'm pretty disappointed by this. With the increased ISO range, I expected lower noise, not more.
And increased non-boost ISO range talks to increased analog amplification, not necessarily lower noise at base ISO.

But let’s look at it qualitatively.

What is the thermal solution? Ultimately, conduction to the surrounding air, where air is a poor conductor. (There will be some natural convection, and occasionally wind for forced convection, but conduction is the primary mechanism). All else being equal (materials, finishes, etc), a camera with more surface area will dissipate heat better.

Since the camera is smaller, and since the electronics are always running full tilt to process the EVF resolution feed, as well as the EVF itself running, the fact that (per Tony Northrup) dynamic range is only slightly worse indicates that they likely used lower power electronics to accomplish more. If there is a larger body coming, I’d expect better performance, again all else being equal.
 
Jul 14, 2018
57
23
What level would you normally push a file? That answers your question.

Personally I find talk of five stop lifts laughable, and always have. I have never seen an image from any camera where that level of adjustment leads to a good result, but that's just me. For a lower level of adjustment, particularly in the shadows there isn't going to be a meaningful difference between the 5D MkIV and the R, if you are happy with the adjustments you do to a 5D MkIV RAW file you will be equally happy with an R RAW file.
Yes and yes, but it is interesting that there seems to be a different result coming from (we're assuming) the same sensor. Frankly (as a 6D owner contemplating upgrading) the idea of being able to recover anywhere near 5 stops, and get a usable result (even if it then needs manipulation in finishing) is still sounding good to me.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,115
115
118
Yes and yes, but it is interesting that there seems to be a different result coming from (we're assuming) the same sensor. Frankly (as a 6D owner contemplating upgrading) the idea of being able to recover anywhere near 5 stops, and get a usable result (even if it then needs manipulation in finishing) is still sounding good to me.
To me it would be more of a surprise to get the same results from the two cameras. They are different types, they have different main processors and they use the sensor in completely different ways.

If you are a 6D owner, MkI or MkII, fear not, the R RAW files are a big leap over your current camera in adjustment capabilities.
 
Ugh, look at about one minute into this video. Yes granted recovering a photo 5 stops is never advisable, but this does not look good. I did not expect to give up anything on the EOS R compared to the 5D4 image quality wise. This may not be the case in actuality.
As mentioned in the other thread, the difference may be because of poor/sub-optimal conversion of RAW files and nothing more. The publisher of video should have disclosed the tool used for RAW conversion, and threats to validity of the experiment. Of course we shouldn't expect more from click-bait pseudo-info-tainers.
 
Last edited: