In Light of the EOS R

Nov 5, 2019
3
1
https://solitaire.cam/With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth today about how the Sony a7III is so much better than the canon offering, my question is, wouldn't you still be better off getting the canon R to be able to use native glass and lenses like the 28-70 f2. Are those lenses possible on the sony mount? Canon glass always seems better than the competition and as everyone in any photography forum points out glass matters much more than the camera body.

Also as a landscape photographer the variable neutral density filter would encourage me to shoot with EF lenses and that adapter for some time. Besides this camera seems like a slight upgrade to the 5D at a price around or less than what the 5D sells for used.

Canon could have done more, and probably shhttps://9apps.ooo/ould have but they seem to rely on selling their system through their lenses rather than camera specshttps://solitaire.cam/
 
Last edited:

Bennymiata

EOS R
CR Pro
I was in a similar position and decided to get the R rather than the Sony or Nikon.
Don't listen to those specsheet chasing warriers, the R is a fantastic camera, and the eye focus after the latest update is fantastic.
The EF adaptors work really well, if a bit expensive, especially those with the filter holders - but for convenience, they can't be beaten.
Nothing beats Canon lenses, and nothing beats Canon colour either.
Some cameras are better here, or better there, but nothing beats the R for for its all-around ability or image quality.
The R is not for fast action work, but I've gotten some nice bif with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,638
1,329
After being with Canon for 15 years (DSLR’s) I know they have always delivered. Sometimes some things isn’t there when I want them, but I understand why, and I know they’re coming. They have REALLY stepped it up going into mirrorless wholeheartedly and everything is rock solid. It’s what I want. I have no desire for anything but the best, and Canon keeps delivering.

the RF50 and RF85 combined with the R is simply fantastic, classleading.
 

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,231
1,516
USA
Sorry, guys, I can only partially agree with your conclusions.

Three days of events involving normal activities of adults and children in school settings...I can definitely say I won't be buying a second R, and I won't buy anymore Rf lenses until Canon produces a mirrorless with a better EVF, and with quicker transition from standby to capture. Just too many missed "decisive moments" when shooting spontaneous scenes that dSLR's have handled well for years. Note that I was using it along with a 5D IV.

I did use the R with the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. The EVF is slightly more jerky than with native RF lenses, but the tracking seemed to work a little better than on the 5D Mark III, not as well as on the 5D IV. (Note these are subjective observations based on a few sessions. Different settings and practice should improve my results.) I used Zone AF, which was probably a mistake, as the User Manual states, that, with Expand AF Area, "focusing is easier with this AF method than with Zone AF." Most of my outdoor, active shots were taken with 1-point AF, and as long as I kept the AF point on the subject, focus was accurate. (But the EVF makes this a challenge!)

The silver lining was classroom, low-light shooting with the Rf 50mm 1.2L. Very easy, as motion was minimal, and the EVF allowed precise exposures without needing to bracket or chimp frequently. AF is also precise, able to shoot through a crowd or between classroom objects when composing. However, in burst mode, the EVF does NOT keep up with facial expressions when somebody is animated, say giving a lesson or reading with gestures and a little "face acting" for the younger kids. There is just too much motion-stutter to know which expression was actually caught and which was missed.

Another positive here, at ISO 1250, the images look wonderful. I find that even with the same sensor in the 5DIV, ISO 1250 is just starting to be a bit of an issue, not much, but entering that less than stellar zone. With the R, even at ISO 2500, things look very good for candid and impromptu available light shots of people. Skin tone, detail, etc.

These were important shots for myself and the events' organizers. A second card would have been comforting--especially as I did have some Windows 10 file-folder weirdness (which had absolutely nothing to do with the SD card, and was completely resolved).

I keep coming to the same conclusion, though I keep hoping to find work arounds: The R is a magnificent portrait camera.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso and CvH

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
Canon could have done more, and probably should have but they seem to rely on selling their system through their lenses rather than camera specs
I think the design of the R was limited by timing more than the result of a marketing strategy of using lenses rather than camera specs to sell the system. The R uses the 5DIV sensor because the advanced sensors were not ready for prime time and they wanted to get an RF camera out the door. The situation with processing and firmware was similar. The 90D and the M6II are aps-c precursors of future Canon RF fullframe cameras.
 

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,231
1,516
USA
I think the design of the R was limited by timing more than the result of a marketing strategy of using lenses rather than camera specs to sell the system. The R uses the 5DIV sensor because the advanced sensors were not ready for prime time and they wanted to get an RF camera out the door. The situation with processing and firmware was similar. The 90D and the M6II are aps-c precursors of future Canon RF fullframe cameras.
Side-by-side, is the M6II's optional EVF smoother than the R? If so, is it a newer design? Or is there just less info to process because of the cropped sensor?
 

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,330
7,105
Side-by-side, is the M6II's optional EVF smoother than the R? If so, is it a newer design? Or is there just less info to process because of the cropped sensor?
Does the amount of info depend on whether it is a crop or FF or on the number of pixels worth? The MII has ~10% more pixels than the R.
 

Act444

EOS R
May 4, 2011
1,120
192
Another positive here, at ISO 1250, the images look wonderful. I find that even with the same sensor in the 5DIV, ISO 1250 is just starting to be a bit of an issue, not much, but entering that less than stellar zone. With the R, even at ISO 2500, things look very good for candid and impromptu available light shots of people. Skin tone, detail, etc.
I wondered if it was just my imagination but going through RP files last night, I wondered if DPP doesn’t clean up mid-range ISO RAW files from that camera ever so slightly better than files from the 5D4...perhaps as in, slightly less blotchy noise pattern. This is not a reflection on differences in the untouched output from the cameras so much as how such details are processed by the NR engine in the DPP software. Hmm...
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,231
1,516
USA
I wondered if it was just my imagination but going through RP files last night, I wondered if DPP doesn’t clean up mid-range ISO RAW files from that camera ever so slightly better than files from the 5D4...perhaps as in, slightly less blotchy noise pattern. This is not a reflection on differences in the untouched output from the cameras so much as how such details are processed by the NR engine in the DPP software. Hmm...
True, as I do my culling in DPP, that might be a factor. But then I'm seeing the quality translated to LR CC's default settings too. So maybe a little of the latest processors, plus software improvements?
 

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS R
CR Pro
Nov 12, 2016
878
597
However, in burst mode, the EVF does NOT keep up with facial expressions when somebody is animated, say giving a lesson or reading with gestures and a little "face acting" for the younger kids. There is just too much motion-stutter to know which expression was actually caught and which was missed.
How does this actually adversely affect the photos you're taking in this situation though? If you're firing off shots in burst mode, then no matter how smooth or jerky the EVF is, you're already relinquishing control over the timing of when the camera takes a photo to the camera itself, limited by however fast it can fire off shots.

I'm perplexed by your statement of "there is just too much motion-stutter to know which expression was actually caught and which was missed." Isn't the entire problem with the R's viewfinder in burst mode that it holds the frame for a fraction of a second after each shot rather than keep a smooth, fluid video feed going to the EVF? I can see (and have experienced) how this could make it more difficult to track a moving subject, but when you're just taking a picture of someone's face that is not moving across your frame, to me it seems like the way the EVF behaves would only make it easier to know which expression was actually caught and which was missed, since the camera is holding each frame in the EVF after it takes it.

It sounds like what you really want is a faster burst mode. Because if the EVF in the R was actually a completely fluid motion, then you'd have completely no idea which expression was actually caught and which was missed until you looked at the photos afterward. Because the only indication you were even taking photos would be either the sound of the shutter or the white frame around the edge of the EVF indicating you're taking photos.
 

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,231
1,516
USA
I'm perplexed by your statement of "there is just too much motion-stutter to know which expression was actually caught and which was missed." Isn't the entire problem with the R's viewfinder in burst mode that it holds the frame for a fraction of a second after each shot rather than keep a smooth, fluid video feed going to the EVF? I can see (and have experienced) how this could make it more difficult to track a moving subject, but when you're just taking a picture of someone's face that is not moving across your frame, to me it seems like the way the EVF behaves would only make it easier to know which expression was actually caught and which was missed, since the camera is holding each frame in the EVF after it takes it.
When a face is the major part of my frame, it's a problem. So are fast gestures, dancing, and leaping. The camera is not holding the image in the frame long enough to actually register what has been caught during a sequence in burst mode, and while what is being hold flashes past, another is caught, and another, and by then I just don't know until I chimp.

I'm glad it is something that doesn't bother you. Perhaps we perceive the EVF differently, but it is a huge distraction for me, one of the only "bummers" I experience with the R. (I know that some people, for example, love the soap-opera effect of motion-smoothing on 4k TV's; I can't stand it. Just a different way of processing electronic images, I suppose.) Another is also with the EVF, and that is the image brightening suddenly when pressing the shutter button halfway. Actual exposure is not affected, but it is another distraction.

But the R is great for portraits, no doubt. There are basically no more "tricky" lighting situations, because, generally, we get exactly what we see through the EVF, whether it's odd indoor lighting patterns, dappled outdoor light, or strong backlighting. Just dial it in!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Act444

EOS R
May 4, 2011
1,120
192
Another is also with the EVF, and that is the image brightening suddenly when pressing the shutter button halfway. Actual exposure is not affected, but it is another distraction.
I have to say I don't notice it too much unless the surrounding background is dark (e.g., a night sky), then it is REALLY noticeable and distracting. Not a dealbreaker though in my case with the RP.
 
Last edited:

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,221
1,377
Hamburg, Germany
Side-by-side, is the M6II's optional EVF smoother than the R? If so, is it a newer design? Or is there just less info to process because of the cropped sensor?
The Canon EVF DC2 is Canon's newest external EVF and it was released in the first half of 2017. It seems to be an OLED panel, like in the R. But the R EVF has about 55% more resolution.

On the product page, Canon does explicitly list a 120 Hz refresh rate for the DC2 which is frustrating, since I can't find any official word about the EVF refresh rate in the R. It sure must be 120 Hz as well though, if they could pull that up on a lower end model in 2017 already, right?

But I think the comment you replied to was referring to the M6 II 14 FPS frame rate shooting, which would almost triple the amount of images displayed in the EVF during bursts and therefore make them appear smoother, regardless of display refresh rate. For upcoming Canon Mirrorless bodies we can hope that they do something useful with this faster sensor readout and address some of the issues you're having.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,638
1,329
I have to say I don't notice it too much unless the surrounding background is dark (e.g., a night sky), then it is REALLY noticeable and distracting. Not a dealbreaker though in my case with the RP.
Much rather have that than focusing stopped down.
 
Sep 26, 2020
1
1
I'm a longtime Canon user that's been contemplating a switch to Sony ever since the A7III release. The grip/ergo I can mitigate with an L plate, but the color science anecdotes I've been hearing have thrown me off. Has anyone done any tests comparing the A7III raw color output in LR to other brands? I'd really be interested in that. shareit vidmate
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: YuengLinger

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,069
712
Now it is probably the worst time to consider switching to Sony. Why do you want to do that, if you already have plenty of lenses which will continue to function well with these new cameras.

You can see from the R5 and R6 that Canon now provides the cameras that are more like what people wanted initially, so now you can get an EOS R or EOS RP to experiment with, and upgrade later. The R system is looking great now, all things considered.

Colour science is such a subjective matter, but I prefer the how the R file looks (but I guess anyone with enough experience can make a Sony look very good) and and also how the body feels over the A7III, particularly the screen and EVF, which are much nicer to look into and operate.
 

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
842
191
Now it is probably the worst time to consider switching to Sony. Why do you want to do that, if you already have plenty of lenses which will continue to function well with these new cameras.

You can see from the R5 and R6 that Canon now provides the cameras that are more like what people wanted initially, so now you can get an EOS R or EOS RP to experiment with, and upgrade later. The R system is looking great now, all things considered.

Colour science is such a subjective matter, but I prefer the how the R file looks (but I guess anyone with enough experience can make a Sony look very good) and and also how the body feels over the A7III, particularly the screen and EVF, which are much nicer to look into and operate.
I guess it depends on your photography needs/interests and budget. To me, Sony has never seemed more appealing, to be frank. The A7III seems to offer much of what the R6 offers (not all, but enough at least in terms of specs for my purposes), and the Sony is substantially cheaper than the R6 in my part of the world. And the lenses available for the Sony system (albeit often third party) are far more appealing to me than what Canon is currently offering. For example, the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN for Sony is much cheaper, smaller and lighter than Canon's RF 85 f/1.2, and still seems to be very good optically, which makes the Sigma a much more enticing proposition than the Canon. The Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 is not much more than half the price of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 (and a bit smaller and lighter, albeit 20mm shorter at the long end), and again seems to be optically very good. Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN for Sony is highly regarded, and it is signficantly less than the price of a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II let alone the RF 24-70. And the Sony system has small primes which seem to be pretty good, like the Sony 55 f/1.8, which currently don't have any real Canon equivalent. (Canon's EF 50 f/1.8 STM is a very different lens. We''ll have to see what the rumoured RF 50 f1/8 is like when it gets here.) I understand the RF lenses are fantastic, but the cost and/or size/weight savings on offer in the Sony system more than outweigh any optical advantages of the RF lenses for my use.

So, am I mvoing to Sony? No, at least not yet. I've really enjoyed my Canon gear over the years, it would cost me some money to get the lens kit I'd really like, and I am not convinced about the size/ergonomics or EVF of the Sony. (To be fair, I'm not convinced about any EVF yet. I haven't had a chance to try out an R5 or R6 yet though.) However, assuming I move to a mirrorless camera one of these days, I will have to decide whether to stick with Canon or jump ship. At least at the moment, Canon's pricing is not making that decision easy. In fact, I've basically lost interst in any new gear for the time being. Even the original EOS R is still selling for significantly more than I paid for my 6D or 6D II, let alone the R6 which is currently sitting at about a 5D series pirce where I am. And if I spent the money on a body now, I'd still be using my existing lenses so I wouldn't be getting the benefits of RF lenses now or at any time in the foreseeable future, limiting the benefit of the new body. Hopefully the pricing will settle down, and hopefully Sigma and Tamron and others will start making RF lenses, so the Canon system starts looking more attractive to me again by the time I am seriously looking at upgrading from my current gear, but I will just have to wait and see.

EDIT: I've said the same sort of thing as my post above in a few other threads, so I'm going to try not to say the same things again in future (will try not to sound like a cracked record!). I am struggling though with the value of what Canon is offering at the moment. Yes, I know I can use EF lenses on an R system body, but if I buy a mirrorless camera body I will certainly have one eye on the native lenses available for it.
 
Last edited:

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,069
712
I guess it depends on your photography needs/interests and budget. To me, Sony has never seemed more appealing, to be frank. The A7III seems to offer much of what the R6 offers (not all, but enough at least in terms of specs for my purposes), and the Sony is substantially cheaper than the R6 in my part of the world. And the lenses available for the Sony system (albeit often third party) are far more appealing to me than what Canon is currently offering. For example, the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN for Sony is much cheaper, smaller and lighter than Canon's RF 85 f/1.2, and still seems to be very good optically, which makes the Sigma a much more enticing proposition than the Canon. The Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 is not much more than half the price of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 (and a bit smaller and lighter, albeit 20mm shorter at the long end), and again seems to be optically very good. Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN for Sony is highly regarded, and it is signficantly less than the price of a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II let alone the RF 24-70. And the Sony system has small primes which seem to be pretty good, like the Sony 55 f/1.8, which currently don't have any real Canon equivalent. (Canon's EF 50 f/1.8 STM is a very different lens. We''ll have to see what the rumoured RF 50 f1/8 is like when it gets here.) I understand the RF lenses are fantastic, but the cost and/or size/weight savings on offer in the Sony system more than outweigh any optical advantages of the RF lenses for my use.
I think the size of the RF 70-200/2.8 IS vs Tamron FE 70-180/2.8 is not that different with the latter being quite a bit slimmer but also a little bit longer, I do not think that fitting the chunky but short RF 70-200 2.8 IS in any bag will cause problems. I do not think that the price difference between that and the Sony GM lens is significant enough to mention, but the size is (but some may prefer internal zooming).
There is also the RF 70-200/4 coming soon, I would probably consider that over the Tamron (yes I would say the same about the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 IS as well but being a much newer lens, Canon might become better), just a much better companion for photo/video with the lens IS but also the IBIS in the R6, which is far superior to Sony. There is also a RF 35/1.8 with IS an RF 85/2 with IS with the aforementioned 50/1.8 yet to be released, but also other older adaptable things, like an EF 85/1.4 with IS, I think the EF 24-70 2.8 II can be obtained quite cheaply now, and it works well enough, too.
As long as one is not looking at fast super telephoto lenses, for a two-year-old system, Canon has plenty of options and expanding.

And if the rumors turn out to be ture Sigma RF lenses should be coming as well within a year as well.
The cameras feel different enough in the hand that one can make an educated decision before going into the lenses and stuff.

The A7III definitely set the standard for how much camera you can get for the least amount of money possible (Canon and Nikon might have played it a bit too smart regarding card slots), but going forward everything is going to be just as expensive as with Canon (including the A7IV), so I do not see a big difference between them when using comparable lenses, if the lens that you want is only available in one over the other, it might affect the decision.
 

Czardoom

EOS 90D
Jan 27, 2020
134
315
I'm a longtime Canon user that's been contemplating a switch to Sony ever since the A7III release. The grip/ergo I can mitigate with an L plate, but the color science anecdotes I've been hearing have thrown me off. Has anyone done any tests comparing the A7III raw color output in LR to other brands? I'd really be interested in that.
Can't answer your question other than color is of course subjective. Having tried Canon, Sony and Olympus cameras over the years, I prefer Canon color with Olympus a close second.

But my main question is, why Sony now? As far as I can see, Canon does pretty much everything better: color, ergonomics (by far), menus, touch screen, lenses, build and weather sealing, ease of use - and now with the R5 and R6 - better IBIS. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I can't think of one reason to choose Sony over Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clbayley