Real world review: Canon EOS R by Fro

Mbell75

I'm New Here
Oct 21, 2018
24
8
What are you on about? Every one of those brands you mentioned makes EF mount lenses, and you can easily and without degrading IQ use them on the R, including all lenses for crop too...
So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,112
673
So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.
You obviously haven’t tried it. And that’s what you would have to do on a Sony anyway, use lenses that NEVER was made for that mount at all. Plus I have the option to use the epic RF lenses....

With the R I get more out of my EF glass as well. Where I always had very sharp corners with the 35 L II for example, in the DSLR’s there wasn’t any way of focusing there and I can now do that...

Also a hundred times easier to use Zeiss and MF with the assist of the R...
 

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
759
178
Thanks but I dont want or need 3 pound $3k lenses. The pricing, size and wight is completely absurd. Unlike the R, Sony users are not limited to only Sony lenses. Tons of great lenses from Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and others. Canon has foolishly made the R a closed system to 3rd party lens companies. Massive mistake.
You are missing the point. Due to the difference in the mount, the exotic R lenses (50 L and 28-70L) that are large and heavy and expensive can’t be made for the Sony-system, at least not without making them considerably larger and heavier.

Canon will release smaller high quality lenses as well, such as the RF 35 f1.8. The market for such lenses is big. But as a first release, Canon opted to show off what they are able to do, much like they did with the 50 f1.0 L back in the days.

In 5 years, most Sony shooters will envy the RF-lens line up, probably the Nikon Z-lens line up as well. Mark my words.
 

sdsr

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 14, 2012
912
7
Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere at canonrumors (and I've not had a chance to watch the video yet) but how fast is AF using the adapter? Out of curiosity, last week I rented the new Nikon mirrorless camera and a native lens and an adapter. The native lens focused extremely fast and accurately, but using Nikon G lenses (I recently inherited some Nikon equipment and was wondering whether to keep any of it) via the adapter it was slower, seeming to involve the same three step process (arrive near the subject, move a bit beyond it and then return) that used to occur using a metabones adapter with Canon lenses on a Sony (albeit quicker). Not a problem with stationary subjects, but not so good if you need instant focus.
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
Here's a reason: Autofocus that isn't a POS.

The Eye AF on the Canon R is actually easier to use than Sony, and I'd argue, better. AI Tracking of a subject the Sony is better, but continuous autofocus on the Canon is far superior. I doubt there are many pro sports or wildlife photographers packing Sony.
Here's another reason: Canon's color science. Until Sony can come close to Canon color, it is not even a consideration for me.
Here's another reason: Canon ergonomics. Or maybe I should just simplify that to say, Sony's awful ergonomics.
Here's another reason: Canon's greater flange distance. If you can't afford Sony's pro level lenses and get their kit lenses, you are screwed by Sony's short flange distance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Talys

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,725
814
119
Here's a reason: Autofocus that isn't a POS.

The Eye AF on the Canon R is actually easier to use than Sony, and I'd argue, better. AI Tracking of a subject the Sony is better, but continuous autofocus on the Canon is far superior. I doubt there are many pro sports or wildlife photographers packing Sony.
I know a couple, they love their Sony AF, and frame rate, and truly silent silent shooting.

All cameras nowadays are way more capable than the people using them and certainly more capable than the vast majority of internet pundits, forum dwellers and pontificators. A pro photographer can use a 70D and run rings around a keen amateur with a 1DX/5D MkIV/Sony A9, it is very rarely about features, they all vastly surpass the features of pro cameras from years ago, it is about understanding your sport or subjects, about knowing your timing, preparation, practice, understanding of light, composition and consistency, blah blah blah.....

Stop arguing incessantly about the small differences between different cameras or manufacturers, or accept what you are doing is an entirely different thing from owning camera gear for the object of taking pictures.
 

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
427
393
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.
And your argument is that better spend almost the same amount + 500$ (for an adapter) on another mirrorless to adapt those "inferior lenses designed for DSLR cameras" to it. How wise it sounds? o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,056
328
Vancouver, BC
I know a couple, they love their Sony AF, and frame rate, and truly silent silent shooting.

All cameras nowadays are way more capable than the people using them and certainly more capable than the vast majority of internet pundits, forum dwellers and pontificators. A pro photographer can use a 70D and run rings around a keen amateur with a 1DX/5D MkIV/Sony A9, it is very rarely about features, they all vastly surpass the features of pro cameras from years ago, it is about understanding your sport or subjects, about knowing your timing, preparation, practice, understanding of light, composition and consistency, blah blah blah.....

Stop arguing incessantly about the small differences between different cameras or manufacturers, or accept what you are doing is an entirely different thing from owning camera gear for the object of taking pictures.
Excuse me, but are you trying to tell me that Sony's lens portfolio will work for most professional sports or wildlife professionals? I find that pretty hard to believe.

Regarding autofocus speeds, flagship DSLRs are indisputably faster, especially with extenders.
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,725
814
119
Excuse me, but are you trying to tell me that Sony's lens portfolio will work for most professional sports or wildlife professionals? I find that pretty hard to believe.

Regarding autofocus speeds, flagship DSLRs are indisputably faster, especially with extenders.
No, I'm not. What I am saying is I personally have empirical evidence that the Canon/Nikon stranglehold on sports photographers (and wildlife shooters) is no longer immutable. There are features from other manufacturers that make them very attractive for reasons other than the obvious, being able to shoot silently at 20fps means you don't need a 400-600mm focal length to get the action, you can shoot unique perspectives with much shorter focal lengths and not disturb the action. This doesn't work for all sports by any means, but the pro sports shooters I know who have switched are golf and tennis pros and they are loving the unique features the Sony's give them. Indeed those features have given them the ability to shoot images not previously doable so their work is standing out, all systems are compromises, they find the compromise equation using Sony's is working out very well for them personally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quirkz

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,433
488
Southeastern USA
I am a 15 year Canon fanboy who sold my 6D and Canon glass and bought an a7iii and Sony lenses after seeing enough reviews of this camera. Its a fine camera if you are a casual shooting amateur taking pics at renaissance fairs. However, not so much if you are a pro portrait, wedding, sports or wildlife photographer thanks to the poor face tracking/eye AF, ridiculously slow FPS rate, one card slot, no IBIS and inferior 4k video. Not only is the competition from Sony and others better, its also cheaper. Zero reason to purchase this camera over the superior and cheaper competition unless you have about $10k worth of Canon glass laying around.
Just pointing out that it's interesting you were a Canon fanboy for 15 years but decided, only after selling your gear for Sony, to join discussions on a forum devoted to Canon gear.

Best of luck, because that's what you'll need with your gear, as Sony is still pondering the whole repair and service infrastructure concept.

In earlier posts have you told us what kind of photographer you are? Because you claim to be speaking on behalf of all types. From a portrait photographer's stand point, I'd say the EOS R is a very good start, if not aimed squarely at current owners of a 5DIV level body. And the lenses look great.

Seems here that Nikon has done a great job with their first higher end mirrorless, the Z7, I think it's called. If only they had introduced Canon quality lenses with it, I'd be tempted right now. However, I'll wait for Canon's next release, which should be an upgrade to the 5DIV, and also promises to be compelling. You see, Canon was clever enough to put out a good mirrorless body with fantastic lenses, keeping some of us happy photographers from jumping ship. This is a sign of a solid company that is acting in the present and planning for the future.

But until Sony has a better track record of supporting its products and not abruptly losing interest in whole categories of electronics, I'll stick with one of the big players.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,421
674
So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.
Thats what I'm doing to start. The benefit is that those EF lenses not focus accurately at all distances where they used to only have one distance that was a sweet spot for the most accurate autofocus.

MY "L" EF lenses are hardly inferior, the R was designed to use them with their full capability. At some point when all my cameras are mirrorless, if that ever happens, then there should be high quality reasonably priced RF lenses to replace my 70-200 II, my 100-400 II, and my 24-70 f/2.8 II. Right now, only the 28-70 could potentially replace my 24-70, but its too big and too expensive (at this point), and I can move my EF lenses back and forth between my SL2, My 5D MK IV, and my R. That's worth a lot.
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
So you're going to spend $2300 on a brand new mirrorless to shoot with old and inferior EF lenses designed for DSLR cameras? Great idea.
Glad to see you haven't paid any attention to those that are using their EF lenses on their new R cameras. The lenses aren't old (they still make them, just so you know) and they are not inferior. Plus now you get new functionality of various adapters. Great Idea, you ask? Yes, Great Idea!
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
251
118
Thanks but I dont want or need 3 pound $3k lenses. The pricing, size and wight is completely absurd. Unlike the R, Sony users are not limited to only Sony lenses. Tons of great lenses from Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron and others. Canon has foolishly made the R a closed system to 3rd party lens companies. Massive mistake.
I think the point is that Canon is committed to making more cost effective lenses for the R as well as the high end ones.. The initial line-up was more to demonstrate what is possible with the new standard.
 

sdsr

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 14, 2012
912
7
Glad to see you haven't paid any attention to those that are using their EF lenses on their new R cameras. The lenses aren't old (they still make them, just so you know) and they are not inferior. Plus now you get new functionality of various adapters. Great Idea, you ask? Yes, Great Idea!
Exactly! Some of us have even spent far more than that on new mirrorless cameras (Sony a7rII and III) in part to be able more easily to use MF lenses, some new, some quite old.
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,433
488
Southeastern USA
Now I've seen the review, all the way through, and I have to say that overall it is an excellent introduction and discussion. Ergonomics are definitely one of the drawbacks for me, and Jared addressed this very fairly.

I do not agree that this is a replacement for the 5D4 and I don't think it's targeted at 5D4 owners. If I were buying a camera for the first time, a full frame, I might be drawn to the Nikon z7. But that is a higher and body, and being a 5D4 owner, I'm fine waiting for Canon's next full frame mirrorless release.
 
Last edited:

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
437
261
I think the point is that Canon is committed to making more cost effective lenses for the R as well as the high end ones.. The initial line-up was more to demonstrate what is possible with the new standard.
And to avoid the reputation the M system has for small, slow lenses.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
437
261
lol. I consider that reputation a key strength of the EOS M system. Decent IQ, compact size, best price/value ratio in market. Strike. :)
It's a small distinction, but an important one: I'm talking about the reputation, not the actual lenses :) I have the full set of EF-M lenses, except for the 18-150.
The launch with the 22mm f/2 was genius, but it took Canon 6 years to beat that with the 32mm f/1.4. I'm hoping for some more EF-M fast primes, like a 16mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.4 (just so Canon can mess with ahsanford).

But back on topic: If Canon had launched the RF system with lenses like a 24-70mm f/3.5-5.6, 50mm f/2.8 STM, the message would have been received by me as "We did a FF mirrorless like you asked, with some mediocre lenses, now go away".
 
  • Like
Reactions: snappy604

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
251
118
and I just wanted to say thanks to Fro and others for their reviews.

I tend to be a generalist when shooting photos (BIFs, wildlife, people, scenery, macro etc) so the info is useful to a degree. Still wish people would cover some of my fringe / niche cases in reviews (low light movement, e.g. bands in pubs).. maybe one day! Its not compelling enough to buy right away, but maybe once price drops.
 

Refurb7

EOS RP
Feb 13, 2016
251
39
I have zero use for a 35mm as a portrait shooter. I only do 50, 85 and 135. Would consider the 50 and 28-70 if one didn't have to take out a loan to purchase them. $5300 for TWO lenses? lol. Pass.
That's ok. Reasonably-priced lenses that you have zero use for will meet the needs of other people.