Review: Canon EOS R by DPReview

#21
On the other hand, video as well as stills are important to ME and I passed on buying an R, even though I have funds saved up for a new camera.
I think the R handles really well, its lenses are fantastic and the still image quality is fantastic, but the video is poor compared to the competition.
I saw a side by side comparison of the R's video compared to the Fuji XT-3m Nikon Z7, Sony A7 III etc., and the video is very soft in comparison.
Now I've been a Canon shooter since 1968 (when I got my first new Canon SLR), but I'm seriously considering something else for my next camera purchase unless Canon do something about their soft video quality.
I'm not interested in 4K so much, but even their 1080 is very soft, and I want an improvement in video from my 5D3, 70D and M5, which unfortunately the R doesn't do.
 
#24
That doesn’t tell me what IBIS adds to a lens with IS, which is the negligible improvement Talys mentioned. This would demonstrate the effectiveness of IBIS alone.
You're really picking nits. Are you saying IBIS benefits lenses with their own IS MORE than IBIS with a non-IS lens? The point is IBIS does not stabilize an image as much as in-lens ID, whether alone or in conjunction. It's not the killer feature some believe it is, at least not as implemented in 2018.
 
#25
On the other hand, video as well as stills are important to ME and I passed on buying an R, even though I have funds saved up for a new camera.
I think the R handles really well, its lenses are fantastic and the still image quality is fantastic, but the video is poor compared to the competition.
I saw a side by side comparison of the R's video compared to the Fuji XT-3m Nikon Z7, Sony A7 III etc., and the video is very soft in comparison.
Now I've been a Canon shooter since 1968 (when I got my first new Canon SLR), but I'm seriously considering something else for my next camera purchase unless Canon do something about their soft video quality.
I'm not interested in 4K so much, but even their 1080 is very soft, and I want an improvement in video from my 5D3, 70D and M5, which unfortunately the R doesn't do.
EOS-R video is by no means perfect. For example, having zebras or histogram when shooting will be helpful add-ons. If you are referring to Max Yuryev's video about side-by-side comparison, there is another video by Justin Reves here that may remove some of the doubts about softness of video through side-by-side experimentation. It argues that setting "sharpness" of video to something greater than the default zero could make it look much better (conclusions are from around 8:30). I've tested it and it myself and it seems to be a good recommendation.
 
Dec 4, 2017
46
4
#26
As you are repeating again and again your same post in several threads I am going to repeat my month old post, too:
"Basically, EOS R can take comparable or a little better still pictures than 5D4. Has much better video spec than 5D4. Is smaller, lighter than 5D4 and has silent shutter. Doesn't need lens calibration. Comes with some interesting and innovative lenses. Can accurately focus in low and back-lit situations. Has a few interesting perks such as control ring, CPL/ND adapters and can shoot with both EF and EF-S lenses."
All the points are still true after a month of using the EOS-R camera and it is absolutely fun to shoot with it.
I’ve been considering the EOS-R against the Sony and Nikon mirrorless competition. The Canon got so bashed online I didn’t expect much. Until I went into a shop recently and used it (I was lucky the actual Canon rep was there). I was really surprised how much I fell for it immediately. E.g., for me, considerably better basic ergonomics than other mirrorless - finally a grip ordinary sized hands don’t lose the little finger on! The more I tried it out and set it up to my liking with the rep’s help, the more impressed I was.

Then I looked more seriously into the system and found the same as posted above. For me, instantly in the store, the Eye-AF worked a treat also. The new lenses coming and seamless adaptation of probably the best fleshed out, and some of the finest, selection of lenses on the market made the decision final. I’ll be getting one.

Is it perfect? Of course not. Do I wish Canon had done some things differently? Of course I do. Will either of those factors stop me buying and enjoying one? No. Do I think it deserves the bashing it’s had from so many reviewers? Hell no. Far too many people these days only comparing this spec to that and not picking a camera up and working out whether it’ll be great in actual, practical everyday use, and looking at the overall system rather than just a body, in my opinion.

To anyone who’s dismissing the EOS-R out of hand based on online reviews, don’t knock it until you’ve at least picked it up, and set it up to your liking, you might be as surprised as I was.
 
Dec 4, 2017
46
4
#27
EOS-R video is by no means perfect. For example, having zebras or histogram when shooting will be helpful add-ons. If you are referring to Max Yuryev's video about side-by-side comparison, there is another video by Justin Reves here that may remove some of the doubts about softness of video through side-by-side experimentation. It argues that setting "sharpness" of video to something greater than the default zero could make it look much better (conclusions are from around 8:30). I've tested it and it myself and it seems to be a good recommendation.
Yeah the Max Yureyev video makes it look much worse than it actually is. I don’t think the test was as controlled as it could have been, and we generally shoot people in relative closeup using video, not heavily blown up areas of parking lot. Often we’re using glimmer glass, or similar, to take down the over-sharpness of 4K on subject’s faces with digital, I think Canon just gets that you’re not going to be shooting distant fine detail a lot, or consider it that important. What they have got right is colour science and actual, usable, video AF, which can be great if you’re operating alone especially on a gimbal.

The crop isn’t ideal though, but S35 would be fine, especially if they came out with a couple of decent fast zooms in native Canon mount à la Sigma 18-35 & 50-100 1.8.
 
Jun 28, 2012
252
1
#28
It's only people who bought one that are comparing it to a 5D Mark IV because they've been brainwashed by camera companies that the sensor MP count is what matters most. And, they're trying to convince themselves that they got a mirrorless 5D Mark IV for a lot less money.
Everyone else is comparing it to the 6D Mark II, A7III, and Z6, which is the proper comparison to make.
Mine replaced an EOS 5DIII and did it rather well. I am quite happy with it. It uses all of my existing lenses very effectively which the A7III and the Z6 will not do.
 

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
856
95
#29
Yeah the Max Yureyev video makes it look much worse than it actually is. I don’t think the test was as controlled as it could have been, and we generally shoot people in relative closeup using video, not heavily blown up areas of parking lot. Often we’re using glimmer glass, or similar, to take down the over-sharpness of 4K on subject’s faces with digital, I think Canon just gets that you’re not going to be shooting distant fine detail a lot, or consider it that important. What they have got right is colour science and actual, usable, video AF, which can be great if you’re operating alone especially on a gimbal.

The crop isn’t ideal though, but S35 would be fine, especially if they came out with a couple of decent fast zooms in native Canon mount à la Sigma 18-35 & 50-100 1.8.
Adjusting the sharpness, eh? Makes you wonder why the reviewers didn't think of that before they started bashing Canon for soft video. Nice of them to hang it all out there for everybody to see. Of course, it is all Canon's fault for improperly setting the default in the first place
 
Oct 31, 2016
149
56
#30
It is not only ergonomics.

No IBIS
Poor Servo-AF/tracking fps
Nerfed 4k video
Bigger than competition
AND more expensive than competition

Canon thought they could get by with a mirrorfree 6D III at a much higher price. It ain't so. Anti-Canon stance at dpreview is obvious, but low score well deserved in this case.
IBIS usually more useful for video. Long exposure longer than 1 second long or bracketing, I still have to use tripod.
Nerf 4K, I don't really care. I know plenty of professional videographers using C200, 5D IV. I'm not a professional videographers so 4K crop isn't an issue for me.

Bigger is a good thing for my big lens. Canon, Nikon, Panasonic all have bigger body than Sony.

It's more expensive but it's cheaper than switching to Sony. EF lens performance works as well as native. You do save alot of money on lens.

Having the option of upgrading to A7RIII/A7III, I stay with Canon EOS R. I simply enjoy it more - ergonomic, EVF, fully articulating LCD, ergonomic, fully touch screen. I gave someone on vacation my EOS R to take my picture, and told them to touch to focus and take a picture and they were delighted how simple it is. I also paired with my smart phone for wireless shooting.

This camera is promising because they offered alot of things that I value but fail short on some thing like dual card slot and poor eyeAF. Once that get resolve, this paired with some EF/RF lens and it will be a beast.
 
Sep 3, 2014
302
6
#31
You're really picking nits. Are you saying IBIS benefits lenses with their own IS MORE than IBIS with a non-IS lens? The point is IBIS does not stabilize an image as much as in-lens ID, whether alone or in conjunction. It's not the killer feature some believe it is, at least not as implemented in 2018.
I thought my post was pretty clear

I’m not saying anything of the sort, I’m asking a question.

It is routinely stated that on platforms like Sony’s the dual IS systems are designed to work together, and that in lens plus in body is better than in lens or in body on such platforms. The post I quoted comes from someone whose opinions I have learned to take seriously, as they generally have experiential basis, hence I’m curious on which he bases this one.

I struggle to see how you confuse a question such as “how did you figure that out” with some sort of implied contrary statement of fact.
 
Last edited:
Aug 26, 2015
308
66
#32
I'm so sick of the "no IBIS" whining. As mentioned above, it provides very little benefit. It's certainly not enough of a difference maker that would cause you to get an f/4 instead of an f/2.8 if you weren't already going to do that.
That's quite a funny statement, because it is exactly why it is a huge feature, even if it only offers a single stop of improvement, it opens up possibilities to use much smaller (cheaper) lenses or use EF/RF lenses where they left out the IS for maximising optical quality. The size advantage of these mirrorless cameras is way greater with a prime lens, but there aren't many which are fast and stabilised. Silent operation is another big thing, but without any kind of stabilization, the rolling shutter can ruin way more shots.

Again I think the EOS R is a fine camera, and when they come out with IBIS they will charge more money for it of course.
It is just the pricing that is upsetting, in Japan it is already close to 1800$ (incl. the 8% consumption tax) which is where it should be.
It was the same with the 6D Mark II as well, fine camera, just not worth anywhere close to 2000$.
The EOS R looks a bit less overpriced in comparison, and also the novelty factor is much stronger with this one, so I guess they can shift a decent amount around 2300$ (they can start to throw in a free adapter later on, etc.) and the supposedly lower-end follow-up model will allow them to keep it where it's at.
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2018
5
3
#34
Yeah the Max Yureyev video makes it look much worse than it actually is. I don’t think the test was as controlled as it could have been, and we generally shoot people in relative closeup using video, not heavily blown up areas of parking lot. Often we’re using glimmer glass, or similar, to take down the over-sharpness of 4K on subject’s faces with digital, I think Canon just gets that you’re not going to be shooting distant fine detail a lot, or consider it that important. What they have got right is colour science and actual, usable, video AF, which can be great if you’re operating alone especially on a gimbal.

The crop isn’t ideal though, but S35 would be fine, especially if they came out with a couple of decent fast zooms in native Canon mount à la Sigma 18-35 & 50-100 1.8.
Yeah no way the EOS R is so soft in video, i've seen other comparison and the sharpness is almost on par with the A7III. Probably he didn't notice he had digital IS on, and that feature crops the image a lot.
 
Aug 29, 2018
7
2
#35
I had good hopes for this review. Their "5 ways to improve articles" for the Canon were mostly related to ergonomics that are probably very personal. The 5 ways to improve the Nikon Z7 were all the AF. I think having a camera that can AF is way more useful than a camera the you have to get used to (ergonomically). So the score of the EOS-R is way too low if you ask me (I have not handled the camera myself). The AF tests for the EOS-R seem to indicate it works well, DR is a bit less than Sony, but we knew that, but image quality seems very good. So why the low score? The explanation they give almost sounds like BS to me.
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,288
138
UK
www.flickr.com
#36
It's only people who bought one that are comparing it to a 5D Mark IV because they've been brainwashed by camera companies that the sensor MP count is what matters most. And, they're trying to convince themselves that they got a mirrorless 5D Mark IV for a lot less money.
Everyone else is comparing it to the 6D Mark II, A7III, and Z6, which is the proper comparison to make.
This isn't aimed at you, but it is interesting to note that those people who were reducing cameras to the sensor in order to criticise Canon not long ago are now suddenly all about the whole system... in order to criticise Canon. Reasonable criticism is fine of course, but it's interesting to see the goalposts moved to maintain a position :rolleyes:
 
Likes: Jack Douglas
#38
My 2 cents asto why Canon doesn't include IBIS: Money.

IBIS = every lens now has stabilization. Works almost as well as in lens IS when shooting static subjects to stabilize the camera shake of the photographer. Does not stabilize as well when trying to stabilize a panning shot, such as a moving car.

In Lens = Heavier lens, but better sports and moving subject image stabilization options. If combined with IBIS you might achieve an extra 1/2 stop over either of them alone.


My theory on why Canon doesn't have it simply comes down to money. Canon charges a premium for IS and gets it. If they build in IS, they will lose quite a bit of people willing to pay a premium for IS on non sports lenses (the IS version of the 70-200 will probably still sell if used for sports, the hand held portrait shooter might opt to use IBIS and buy the lower cost version).
The new RF 50 1.2 doesn't though, nor does the new RF 28-70 f/2.
 
Likes: 4fun
#39
That's quite a funny statement, because it is exactly why it is a huge feature, even if it only offers a single stop of improvement, it opens up possibilities to use much smaller (cheaper) lenses or use EF/RF lenses where they left out the IS for maximising optical quality. The size advantage of these mirrorless cameras is way greater with a prime lens, but there aren't many which are fast and stabilised. Silent operation is another big thing, but without any kind of stabilization, the rolling shutter can ruin way more shots.

Again I think the EOS R is a fine camera, and when they come out with IBIS they will charge more money for it of course.
It is just the pricing that is upsetting, in Japan it is already close to 1800$ (incl. the 8% consumption tax) which is where it should be.
It was the same with the 6D Mark II as well, fine camera, just not worth anywhere close to 2000$.
The EOS R looks a bit less overpriced in comparison, and also the novelty factor is much stronger with this one, so I guess they can shift a decent amount around 2300$ (they can start to throw in a free adapter later on, etc.) and the supposedly lower-end follow-up model will allow them to keep it where it's at.
I just don't see 1 stop as a big deal when high ISO's are handled so well (not specific to this camera) as compared to film, and if they are, your application is demanding enough to rent or buy a better lens with 3 - 5 stops of IS improvement for the job.
 
Jan 25, 2016
40
18
#40
For me its pretty obvious that Canon was in a hurry. Another rumor last year said there were 2 teams working on different cameras. I suppose one team was meant to use existing technology put it in a slightly smaller housing and make a camera that could be released before Christmas. While the other team is still working on the flagship thats supposed to be released next year. This flagship will probably finally include a newer and better sensor.

No matter what Dpreview wrote, the EOS R is clearly a step forward for Canon semi-pro users. And that's what its meant to be. And its the same like with every generation, you're forced to choose between "do I buy the older higher model or the newer lower model which is almost the same".

The EOS R will face the same fate as the 6D2. After a few months its price will drop and it will sell like hotcakes. And some people will call it the best vlogging camera.