Review: New Canon EOS R firmware

[neuroanatomist]

I can see it now: Someone taking a group picture, and some bystander walks by in the distance and the camera tries to go to f/100 (with ISO having an exponent and shutter speed verging on "bulb") to get the depth of field "right."

It's a non issue. Talk to any Sony troll, they'll tell you that while Sony's face detect can easily detect and focus on close faces, distant faces, clown faces, alien faces, dog faces, fish faces, praying mantis faces, and the face of the man in the moon, Canon's face detect AF is limited to people staring right into the camera from a very close distance.

 

[SteveC]

It's a non issue. Talk to any Sony troll, they'll tell you that while Sony's face detect can easily detect and focus on close faces, distant faces, clown faces, alien faces, dog faces, fish faces, praying mantis faces, and the face of the man in the moon, Canon's face detect AF is limited to people staring right into the camera from a very close distance.

Whew, I'm glad those trolls are around to help clear things up.

 

[Sharlin]

The M6 II manual makes no mention of that mode.

So it seems. Presumably it's an OVF-only feature then (maybe with on-sensor shooting the auto mode recognizes a group of multiple people and adjusts the aperture accordingly, without a special scene mode required).

 

[CollegePhotographerClay]

I can see it now: Someone taking a group picture, and some bystander walks by in the distance and the camera tries to go to f/100 (with ISO having an exponent and shutter speed verging on "bulb") to get the depth of field "right."

But I agree, on the whole it's a good idea--and if/when I get the M6 II (about 30 seconds after I give up on there ever being an M5 II) I'll have some access to it.

I created an account just to like this comment. Personally I'd love Canon to have some of the tricks it had back in the day (eye detect like the EOS3).

 

[mjg79]

This is really promising. However I don't normally read that site (Phoblographer) - are they normally reliable? I mean if you read some websites they tend to claim every single camera they ever use is the greatest camera ever and you must click the link below if you want to buy it etc etc. Or is this more reputable?

I'm quite impressed if so. It would seem to suggest a new style line up for RF mount with Canon as the R now seems to sit somewhere between a 6D equivalent and 5D equivalent line.

It's clever marketing too as if Canon establishes (like Fuji has done for example) that they will keep improving their cameras once released it buys them a little leeway on release. Previously it was a very bad idea to buy a camera hoping it would be improved but that no longer looks so far fetched.

 

[melgross]

Phoblographer... Is he a Canon ambassador/representative? Most likely yes. Why should anyone believe anything he has to say???

Because he’s been around for years, and if you read his work, you can see that he’s been honest over that time. Besides, we will see the firmware before too long. If he’s way off from reality, it will damage him. Why should he do that?

 

[AlanF]

It's a non issue. Talk to any Sony troll, they'll tell you that while Sony's face detect can easily detect and focus on close faces, distant faces, clown faces, alien faces, dog faces, fish faces, praying mantis faces, and the face of the man in the moon, Canon's face detect AF is limited to people staring right into the camera from a very close distance.

You missed out bull faeces.

 

[Adrianf]

Surely the most significant thing is that this is a development update, not just a bug fix. A real improvement in Canon's after sales service.

 

[zogdart]

I can't wait to get this new firmware. Now the question is how much of an improvement will it be! but a least it will be an improvement. When I opened the article one things got my attention, If you look at all the sample images he doesn't have any full length, I mean if you want to prove a point about the new firmware it would have a good idea to post full length otherwise it kind of looks like if he would have done the test with the old firmware...

 

[RayValdez360]

Because he’s been around for years, and if you read his work, you can see that he’s been honest over that time. Besides, we will see the firmware before too long. If he’s way off from reality, it will damage him. Why should he do that?

Peopel lie all the time. how many peopel will he lose if he lies or exaggerates a firmware update for a camera most people dont have ?

 

[RayValdez360]

I can't wait to get this new firmware. Now the question is how much of an improvement will it be! but a least it will be an improvement. When I opened the article one things got my attention, If you look at all the sample images he doesn't have any full length, I mean if you want to prove a point about the new firmware it would have a good idea to post full length otherwise it kind of looks like if he would have done the test with the old firmware...

A video would actually be more informative. I can get sharp photos already. A video who show the improvement in action.

 

[Bahrd]

And you need to change the neck strap...

Pity! In Sony you don't have to!

But (slightly more) seriously: Sony just make Canon mirrorless cameras better...

 

[Cryhavoc]

Canon had posted on their R firmware site 1.4 for a short period of time. The download link was there but it took you to an error 404 page since the content was blocked. Says the firmware release date is 9-26. I took a screen snag of the page. The links and info is now gone from the R firmware page though.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

Canon had posted on their R firmware site 1.4 for a short period of time. The download link was there but it took you to an error 404 page since the content was blocked. Says the firmware release date is 9-26. I took a screen snag of the page. The links and info is now gone from the R firmware page though.

Same thing happened with the 1.2 update, the Canon Canada site had the page up days early but the link to the software went to 404. In the end the link went live on the day listed.

I am glad it is getting closer, not that I really use Eye Detection or Tracking but as a software developer I like new shiny updates

 

[Cryhavoc]

Same thing happened with the 1.2 update, the Canon Canada site had the page up days early but the link to the software went to 404. In the end the link went live on the day listed.

I am glad it is getting closer, not that I really use Eye Detection or Tracking but as a software developer I like new shiny updates

just came back from Kenmore Camera (they had a pristine/used BG-22 for the R dirt cheap) and they had said Canon came in the week before with the m6 mkII the 90D and an R with the latest firmware. The sales persons there tried out the R with 1.4 and said it is just night and day what this new firmware does.

 

[Ozarker]

I can't wait to get this new firmware. Now the question is how much of an improvement will it be! but a least it will be an improvement. When I opened the article one things got my attention, If you look at all the sample images he doesn't have any full length, I mean if you want to prove a point about the new firmware it would have a good idea to post full length otherwise it kind of looks like if he would have done the test with the old firmware...

I have a full length with the present firmware at f/1.2 with the RF 85mm. Incredible detail and focus.

 

[YuengLinger]

After using the EOS R with the 50mm 1.2 for a few hours, I can say the firmware update will definitely be welcome. Why? Because what throws me off when somebody walks towards the camera from a distance is the AF frame goes about to the size of the person's torso, making it hard to place AF on the face/head area. (Even when using the little circle to specify the face/head as the starting point.) So if the firmware update involves allowing for a smaller AF frame while tracking, then it might reassure me that AF is indeed on the face during the subject's entire approach.

Does this make sense? Another way to say it, when a subject is, say, 15 meters away walking towards the camera, using a small AF frame without tracking seems easier, because once +Tracking is turned on, the AF frame stays too big until the subject gets, ummm, about 5 meters away. Maybe the distances sound too far, but they are what I've commonly shot with the 5DIV for several years now.

Now, to be sure, I am seeing some amazing AF performance. And I need to practice a LOT more with this camera. But I do question some of the hit rates I've read online, and now wonder if SOME of them are due to creating less challenging scenario's for the EOS R than the 5D IV when using AF tracking. (Such as having the subject walk more slowly, straighter, and starting a little closer. I don't mean this is done to make the camera seem better, but because it is a new type of FF body, with a new AF experience, and the EVF takes a while to get used to. Mix these factors together and some photographers/reviewers might be unconsciously taking things a little easy with the AF tracking.

 

[Viggo]

I do not go easy on AF performance but in wouldn’t use auto tracking for a lot of things other people might, I like my single point. I find hitrate increased quite a bit when using -1 for tracking sensitivity and +1 on acc/deacc.