Review: Canon EOS R by DPReview

Nov 19, 2018
127
34
#81
Interesting. Other than having a red button I’ve never pressed and some menu items, I can’t immediately think of any negative impacts having video capability brings, especially to performance. Maybe without they could use slightly cheaper processors, but that would be a cost impact.
to capture and process full-bore 4k video for up to 29 minutes a lot of compromises and design choices are necessary at the expense of stills functionality and higher cost of camera.

* different sensor layout, meeting tough demands for video first; stills take second place
* heat dissipation, more heat shielding, bigger body, potential overheat issues
* video processing pipeline/codec - not free of cost, siphons away CPU power from stills and/or AF system performance; more features in firmawre = higher cost than needed for pure stills
* audio: recording - amps + processing power + battery life at the expense of stills; stereo speakers, stereo mics, video-related output jacks [HDMI etc] - higher cost, more difficult to weatherseal; not needed for stills
* UI/Control points/ergonomics: separate "red record video" button (instead of just using regular shutter button) typically not user-assignable, often very stupidly placed/inadvertent activation, wastes precious real estate
* menu cluttering - typically no choice to hide away unneeded video options/submenus; EOS R - no more mode dial because stills modes duplicated for video
...
and for sure some more. But it is force fed on ALL camera purchasers. I like the concept of Sony with dedicated, video-centric camera model (A7S series), but why is there no "pure stills" version?
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,390
440
Canada
#82
not really. For example: ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways and is only utilized (in earnest) by a small minority of purchasers.
To be fair, most functions are utilized by a small minority. The vast bulk of DSLRs sold spend their lives in “green box” mode
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,655
165
#83
* different sensor layout, meeting tough demands for video first; stills take second place
What would they do differently in a stills only sensor? Isn’t video merely a bunch of sequential stills?

* heat dissipation, more heat shielding, bigger body, potential overheat issues
A body designed for the heat of video would improve still quality (likely not enough to notice) and be less likely to overheat while taking stills.
* video processing pipeline/codec - not free of cost, siphons away CPU power from stills and/or AF system performance; more features in firmawre = higher cost than needed for pure stills
* audio: recording - amps + processing power + battery life at the expense of stills; stereo speakers, stereo mics, video-related output jacks [HDMI etc] - higher cost, more difficult to weatherseal; not needed for stills
That processing, audio amplification, and battery power is only consumed while recording video. It being there doesn’t affect stills performance in any discernible way. It affects bill of material cost, but is probably offset by the non-recurring development costs of parallel lines, especially if per above you want to see a stills-only sensor.
* UI/Control points/ergonomics: separate "red record video" button (instead of just usingregular shutter button) typically not user-assignable, often very stupidly placed/inadvertent activation, wastes precious real estate
Camera controls in these “hybrid” cameras generally follow stills camera convention. If anything, it sucks for video.
* menu cluttering - typically no choice to hide away unneeded video options/submenus; EOS R - no more mode dial because stills modes duplicated for video
It would be hard to argue a cluttered menu impairs still capture. If I have to go into the menu at all to take a photo, the UI is poor.
 
Likes: CanonFanBoy

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,955
208
Vancouver, BC
#84
not really. For example: ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways and is only utilized (in earnest) by a small minority of purchasers.

Or ... up to now NONE of the makers offers a really compact FF MILC ... why is there no FF MILC only slightly larger than Sony RX-1R II [or A7 1st gen] - with a lens mount up front in lieu of a Zeiss-branded 35mm fixed lens and a decent, compact battery [eg like Fuji's NP-W126S with 9 WHrs] ... ? And at an affordable price instead of "super-premium" ...
What do you mean about video recording compromising optimal stills performance?

When something doesn't exist, it's because of one of two things: 1) it's not feasible or 2) manufacturers don't think there's a large enough market for that.

Putting aside the manufacturing costs, the reason FF MILCs aren't cheaper than they are is because the price curve is not that flexible. For a lot of people, $1000 is just as crazy a price as $2,000 for a camera.
 
Last edited:
Likes: CanonFanBoy
Dec 6, 2016
181
66
#85
I have to wonder if thise that bag the canon have even picked one up. I finally got to do so today(with a 50 1.2 attached) and it felt good in the hand. And to compare i also held a z6 and a73. Only the canon had a grip good enough for my little finger to sit comfortably. The nikon was marginal and the Sony was typically crap. The canon was actually a little lighter than I was expecting but still provided a good heft in the hand without being cumbersome. EVF was as good as I have seen but I still have reservations. Kept my eye to it for 5mins and started to get that achey feeling. I just can't see mirrorless ever being good enough for wildlife. Hopefully will get to have a decent test in a couple of weeks doing landscapes.
 
Nov 19, 2018
127
34
#86
Putting aside the manufacturing costs, the reason FF MILCs aren't cheaper than they are is because the price curve is not that flexible. For a lot of people, $1000 is just as crazy a price as $2,000 for a camera.
yes. But ... i still think there is a good deal of price elasticity. 1 grand/999 is a "magical threshold". unit sales would be massively higher than at 1999 or 2299. see Apple iphone: sales stalled when they tried to break that barrier. :)

the other thing here is being more expensive than competitive products that are objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) more functionailty.

both factors contribute to the current "l won't buy into R yet, let's wait for the price to come down ... and more clarity regarding development of R system, bodies and lenses".
 
Aug 26, 2015
308
65
#87
Because it actually is a competitive marketplace, each manufacturer has constraints, including profitability, costs, engineering timelines, and intellectual property rights. If Canon could give you a camera with IBIS, 8k video, 30fps, 15 steps of DR and 50 megapixels, all for just $2,000 don't you think they would? If Sony could add DPAF and offer a 200-400+TC, wouldn't they?
Unfortunately Canon have passed this point (making products as good as they can) a long time ago, they are able to do much more than what they are already doing and they've also priced that to the maximum (although in their ecosystem, it is still less overpriced than the 5D IV or the 6D II originally were, because it is probably cheaper to produce as well).
And that's simply because it is a FF mirrorless camera with a strong new platform, nice optics (which will be another reason for people to buy into it, no matter the rest) and it has all the goodies Canon is known for (DPAF, flip-out screen, color science) and the rest is not so important. At least they are continually adding a few new features that haven't been available before at this level, and because multiple cameras are expected, we may not need to wait several years for some forward steps.
No need to rush it... this is one of those few times in photography where we get to see some real differentiation between different manufacturers, at least for a little while. Relish it!
As consumers, the two basic tools that we have is either buy-in and accept (relish) this, or maybe choose something else to induce them to maybe try a bit harder next time. And that's it. But in the end as you've written, the differentiation will be narrowed down and all will be more and more similar, so they win anyway.

Whatever Sony "wins" on the feature front regarding the camera, they loose it back on not having the backbone like Canon has with the full support of the EF lenses, only the expensive FE lenses (and Canon is also winning against Nikon in that regard).
 
Last edited:

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
856
95
#88
yes. But ... i still think there is a good deal of price elasticity. 1 grand/999 is a "magical threshold". unit sales would be massively higher than at 1999 or 2299. see Apple iphone: sales stalled when they tried to break that barrier. :)

the other thing here is being more expensive than competitive products that are objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) more functionailty.

both factors contribute to the current "l won't buy into R yet, let's wait for the price to come down ... and more clarity regarding development of R system, bodies and lenses".
You have made your convictions concerning the marvels of price elasticity and the perils of objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) less functionality very clear. Economists live by the creed that sales would increase if prices came down and/or features were improved (not that I am accusing anybody of being an economist).

Shoulda, woulda, coulda rhetoric tends to lose its power to persuade with exagerration, repetition, and speculative fingerprinting. On the other hand, without these qualities shoulda, woulda, coulda rhetoric can seem obvious and pointless.
 
Nov 19, 2018
127
34
#89
You have made your convictions concerning the marvels of price elasticity and the perils of objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) less functionality very clear. Economists live by the creed that sales would increase if prices came down and/or features were improved (not that I am accusing anybody of being an economist).
Shoulda, woulda, coulda rhetoric tends to lose its power to persuade with exagerration, repetition, and speculative fingerprinting. On the other hand, without these qualities shoulda, woulda, coulda rhetoric can seem obvious and pointless.
while specific metrics for this case are not publicly available, it is very real nevertheless. Canon is off to a slower start with EOS R than they could be because many potential customers like myself are holding off buying. Most of us don't buy end-of-line mirrorslappers and EF glass any longer and we don't buy into EOS R yet. Potential new customers without investment in Canon lenses and speedlites/accessories and no longstanding experience with and preference for Canon's user interface and color science etc. are more likely to buy into a competitor's FF MILC system that offers (somewhat and depending on specific use case) better functionality at a (somewhat) lower price.

Of course it is Canon's decision what they offer and at what price. It is my right however to point out where I think they are taking less than optimal or even outright bad decisions. For them and for some/many/most/all of their customers :)
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,955
208
Vancouver, BC
#90
yes. But ... i still think there is a good deal of price elasticity. 1 grand/999 is a "magical threshold". unit sales would be massively higher than at 1999 or 2299. see Apple iphone: sales stalled when they tried to break that barrier. :)

the other thing here is being more expensive than competitive products that are objectively and perceptionally offering (somewhat) more functionailty.

both factors contribute to the current "l won't buy into R yet, let's wait for the price to come down ... and more clarity regarding development of R system, bodies and lenses".
Prices become inelastic when someone either must have some feature - because they're a professional and that tool generates revenue -- or really doesn't care about something -- like some amateurs who are already thrilled to have a good APSC.

Sure, canon would sell more Rs at $1500 or $1000, but I really doubt the number of upsold units from $400 kits would be that high. I just dont think the FF market is that large, and for reasons beyond just price. You could drop R to $500, and the fella who prefers his Pixel will still never buy it.

In any case, I choose to believe that obviously, when we further consider profit (and costs), the intersection of the supply and demand curves is around USD $2k for the body now. The alternative is that camera manufacturers are all stupid and collectively dont understand their market, which I just dont believe.
 

BillB

EOS Rebel T7i
May 11, 2017
856
95
#91
while specific metrics for this case are not publicly available, it is very real nevertheless. Canon is off to a slower start with EOS R than they could be because many potential customers like myself are holding off buying. Most of us don't buy end-of-line mirrorslappers and EF glass any longer and we don't buy into EOS R yet. Potential new customers without investment in Canon lenses and speedlites/accessories and no longstanding experience with and preference for Canon's user interface and color science etc. are more likely to buy into a competitor's FF MILC system that offers (somewhat and depending on specific use case) better functionality at a (somewhat) lower price.

Of course it is Canon's decision what they offer and at what price. It is my right however to point out where I think they are taking less than optimal or even outright bad decisions. For them and for some/many/most/all of their customers :)
Metrics on Canon R production and sales do exist, but they are not publicly available. There are no metrics for coulda shoulda woulda estimates on how well Canon would have done with an R Camera with "better" features, selling at a lower price.
 
Aug 26, 2015
308
65
#93
Looking at the prices of Canon and Nikon (body only for simplicity), it is very interesting.

The Z6 in the US 2000$ while the EOS R is 2300$
But in Japan the Z6 is almost 2200$ and EOS R at nearly 1800$ (incl. 8% tax)

A grey market store in the EU that I am looking at:
Nikon Z6 2500$ EOS R 2050$

I guess the Z6 will drop a little internationally and the Canon will drop a little in the US, but it seems that Canon is overcharging in the US compared to Nikon (probably much stronger marketing), and Nikon wants to make grey market uncompetitive or marketed more as a 'premium product' in Japan?
 
Oct 1, 2015
82
7
#95
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).
It would also open up a lot of very good Sigma glass as competition for IS Canon lenses. I use Sigmas a lot on my Sony and Sony works with Sigma so they don't have to reverse engineer lens body communication. They work very well together. Sony doesn't seem to have that fear.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jan 28, 2015
2,655
268
Irving, Texas
#96
not really. For example: ALL makers put video recording into ALL cameras, although it compromises optimal stills performance in multiple ways and is only utilized (in earnest) by a small minority of purchasers.
Yes really.

Nikon Df2 DSLR (No video)
Sigma sd Quattro Camera (mirrorless, no video)
Sigma sd Quattro H Camera (mirrorless, no video)
Sigma SD1 Merrill Digital SLR (no video)
Olympus Pen (mirrorless, no video)


Pure stills cameras. No video. The Nikon is $2,799.00

Compact FF cameras:
Leica Q
Sony RX1R Mark II
 
Likes: Talys

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,955
208
Vancouver, BC
#97
Looking at the prices of Canon and Nikon (body only for simplicity), it is very interesting.

The Z6 in the US 2000$ while the EOS R is 2300$
But in Japan the Z6 is almost 2200$ and EOS R at nearly 1800$ (incl. 8% tax)

A grey market store in the EU that I am looking at:
Nikon Z6 2500$ EOS R 2050$

I guess the Z6 will drop a little internationally and the Canon will drop a little in the US, but it seems that Canon is overcharging in the US compared to Nikon (probably much stronger marketing), and Nikon wants to make grey market uncompetitive or marketed more as a 'premium product' in Japan?
Camera shops I've chatted with have said that when it comes to Mirrorless FF sales today, it's Sony > Canon > Nikon, and each step isn't particularly close. I think Nikon has to do more to be competitive in the mirrorless space, particularly since its FTZ adapted lenses aren't anything to write home about. The lowest hanging fruit is DSLR owners who buy a mirrorless body, but that's not going to happen if adapted lenses don't work about as well as they did on their DSLR bodies.
 
Likes: padam
Nov 19, 2018
127
34
#98
"urban myth/fake news alarm" goes off here!

All current Nikon F-mount lenses (especially all AF-S lenses) work as well on Nikon Z bodies when adapted via Nikon FTZ adapter as EF lenses do when adapted with OEM Canon adapter to Canon EOS R.

in both cases AF performance is "within the limitations" of those designed for DSLR detached phase-AF operation lenses - depending on type of AF drive and possibly chip/control firmware in them.

only outdated old analog-film-era Nikon shards (eg with screwdriver-AF and/or mechanical aperture ring shenanigans) that a few nerds still want to use on today's hi-performance sensors/digital cameras are not/not fully (AF-) functional any longer on Z-mount. direct consequence of Nikon using the same 1957 F-mount into the electronic era, rather than ditching/updating it much sooner (as Canon did with the advent of AF in 1987, FD -> EF).

in reality a total non issue for majority of today's Nikon users and (potential) Nikon Z buyers.

the whinging is just another vent for the largely irrational "adapter-phobia" often voiced in a misleading way by a few old-shard owners.
 
Nov 19, 2018
127
34
#99
Yes really.
Nikon Df2 DSLR
Sigma sd Quattro Camera
Sigma sd Quattro H Camera
Sigma SD1 Merrill
Olympus Pen
---
Leica Q
Sony RX1R Mark II
ah, yes thanks for pointing out those products, that are all totally irrelevant on the market because they miss the mark by a mile.

common denominator is "high price/poor usability/performance".
But, some of them could have been really interesting, had they been done "really right".

most of us are aware of the glaring problems the listed cameras gave. we avoid the like cancer because of those problems, not because their "lack of video recording".

done right, Nikon Df for example could have been a blockbuster FF camera. it was let down by its absurd retro approach, totally botched UI and most importantly the absurdly high price relative to its performance/functionality. why oh why did Nikon not repeat their smash hit D3/D700 combo approach and stick that same nice D4 sensor into a "regular UI, compact D710 body and price it sensibly at about 2 grand? they'd have sold tons of it (back in the day in 2013, not any longer end of 2018). but .. stupid Nikon. it had to be a brilliant teaser campaign followed by a totally overpriced, disfunctional and ugly retro hipster knurled mono-functional metal knobs turd. "the Fuji of Nikon". thanks, but no thanks. i bet the Nikon Df fail cost them dearly. well deserved.
 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2018
127
34
Now, that tiny Sony RX1R II is almost exactly what i would buy in an instant if it were available with FE mount up front plus somewhat better battery life and ... at a reasonable price (eg 1999 €/$). Or alternatively: if it came at least with a built-in good 24-85/4.0 zoom instead of a Zeiss-labelled 35mm fixed lens.
But ... stupid, Sony! Apparently they were obsessed to make a "Leica-type super-premium priced collector's item". And got what they deserved: almost no sales.

Same goes for Leica Q. What a waste of precious aero-space grade aluminium blocks that could be used for real, legit, highly functional products instead of on premium-priced collectibles ending up in glass shelves and as fancy auction items 100 years from now. Of course in "as-new, absolutely mint, un-used condition".

Re. Sigma cameras the only word that comes to my mind is "digital aberrations". :rolleyes:o_O
All of them thoroughly weird, limited and utterly unconvincing. Not because of "no video", but "despite of it". Me - and obviously vast majority of market - is neither interested in Foveon sensors limited to base ISO, nor in APS-H, nor in fixed-lens cameras, nor in clinically dead Sigma SA mount.

Personally i am actually not interested in any single current Sigma product, including their Art lenses, simply because i won't ever buy expensive gear that relies on reverse engineering for crucial functionality like AF. yuck!
 
Last edited: