Shield3

Nobody was expecting EOS R to have 1.8x+ crop, no 1080p120, no IBIS, no burst silent shutter, horrific rolling shutter, no joystick, no tracking silent shutter, 1 card slot, native R mount lenses that won't work with the vari-ND filter, top left "on-off button - only" either for $2300. Methinks some Canon upper mgmt a-hole asks really stupid questions like "how can we make this not as good as our Cinema line"...and everyone submits to his/her will.

I am going to suggest all folks who are annoyed @ Canon update their avatar on this site as a show of solidarity. I present my new one; follow like-wise gentlemen!

Funniest comment from Youtube: "Living that 720p life in 2018! Bold bold move Canon" This thread makes me want to buy another NX-1. Seriously. Close to Canon colors once tweaked - I just hated not having AF adapters for long Canon mount lenses. Everything else I loved, save for the fact once rolling video you couldn't toggle between the EVF or rear screen. Drove me nuts. Ok I don't want one now. I remember why we broke up.

Was this shot in France? Must have shot from Belgium for those wide shots. Stopped watching at 0:07 when he said "shoots 8 frames per second" - yeah, not if your subject is actually moving. AF locked at that speed. Day 2 other things that are super annoying - the top left button is *ONLY* the freaking on/off switch. That's it folks! You can't (yet) shoot anything other than SINGLE SHOT mode for silent shooting You can't (yet) shoot using EYE AF using tracking - it's single shot only FPS drops to THREE when tracking is enabled. Goodnight people. This feels rushed to be honest.

I'm seeing quite a few 80d used for $699 and new for $767 on ebay. Plus you wouldn't need the extra R-EF adapter. Much closer to $1500 or more (double) the cost. But you're not going to shoot FF with the 10-18 on the R, right? So you're 1.7x in 4k plus you'll have to buy another lens to do full-frame 1080 on the R. Unless you can flip into S35 mode, which seems like a huge waste of extra money. Speaking of course for the causal "vlogger" here - people that think we want to watch them go somewhere and have dumb opinions on things (not my forte). Ironically, and sadly, your field of view would be wider with the 80d + 10-18 STM, better battery life (no EVF) and pretty good vlogging AF. Now granted I've never liked the 70/80d's image, but it does AF pretty well and have the flip out screen.

Why not just grab an 80d + 10-18STM then, vloggers? Far cheaper.

But if you go with native R lenses, you don't have the ND filters. Like if I kicked in the 3k for the 28-70 F/2 - I'm still either using a matte box with drop in filters or screwing some on the end. The ND adapter is only for adapting EF lenses. Or did I miss something?

Guess you never read any Shakespeare. Some mouth on you Mercer - geesh. The frustrating part for me is you know damn well Canon *could have* done better with this one. No 4k60? No 1080p120? The a6000 had the latter, and the 2 year old 1dxII had the former upon release. I always have considered myself a Canon person at heart - just so pissed they're holding back - they're not listening to customers like Sony and it shows. Canon needs a shake-up in the upper mgmt/marketing area more than anything else. Push the damn envelope. Had this been released in 2014 there would be a lot less complaining. Not very many Canon non-cinema bodies have an EVF - and it's tough to see the back of the body in good light (and I'm tired of loupes and heavy external EVFs). Only one we had was the XC10 - I had it for a couple of months and just didn't love the image. So yeah - a few of us were serious buyers and looking forward to this, and mostly frustrated that Canon thinks they know better than we (the collective consumer).

Hoo boy. Yeah, it's very inconspicuous to roll up with a fully rigged C200 - no one would ever think you're not shooting video there pal. It's nice to have a small camera where the situation requires it - gimbal work is much easier among 1000 other reasons. Poor analogy too by the way - you can easily create stunning shots with a small mirrorless camera - I mean we're talking about max 8.3 megapixel 4x. I'll bet your c200 is overkill for most of what we want to use video cameras for really. Paid gigs, sure. Very limiting though when it comes to being a wallflower - often times people think I'm shooting stills and I'm rolling video. Tell me why, pray tell *should* it be an afterthought? Because you think so? Oh yeah, no everyone has $7k to splash down on a c200....

Methinks thou doth protest too much. It just came out today. Spend our days? We're more than allowed to complain - especially those of us excited about getting this camera and have now been let down. I've owned a few 5d3's, the 70d, 2 C100's, 1dxII, 2 1dc's, 3-4 1dx's, Rebels, and just about every lens Canon makes including 300 2.8's. Am I not allowed to bitch on release day when I'm disappointed?

I feel the same as you exactly....

On a different note - anyone think the price of the 28-70 F/2 is a tad high? $3k? Keep in mind one cannot adapt this to *any* other body. No Canon EOS Cinema, 5dIV, ID, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, etc. It's native "R" mount.

Thinking about this on my workout today. Aperture (hole) size can be 1.4 on Micro four thirds and full frame. But which hole is physically larger and thus allows more (total) light in? The FF lens, of course! If an eye dr. told me you have your pick - see through a F/1.2 25mm FF lens or a quarter crop sensor F/1.2 25mm, the FF one would be twice as wide and total light coming in would be greater. Canon has essentially made the "eye" smaller in UHD mode - the rest of the sensor is doing nothing to gather light. So not all F/1.2's are equal - shutter speed, ISO, aperture all make up the exposure for the given sensor size. In the EOS R's case, since they're using only the center 1/3rd of the sensor, it's just like having 1.2 @ 1.7x - for both focal length and DOF. Yes the camera will still read F/1.2, but it's *not* the same as a FF sensor gathering that F/1.2. Which is why they released a 42.5mm F/1.2 - it's like a 85 F/2.4 on FF.

But yes, it's more about DOF and effective focal length than light gathering. I would submit the larger the sensor area, all things being equal, would gather more "total" light, even with the same light intensity. Exposure will not change; F/1.8 is F/1.8. People intertwine "light intensity" and "light gathering" and they're not the same. But again - shoot a 50 2.8 on a full frame and compare that to a 25mm F/1.4 on a micro four thirds. Same DOF / focal length.

This takes it a step further though - it's only reading from the center of the sensor. So it's almost like having a micro four thirds when you're shooting UHD...:!

If I took a FF Canon 50 1.4 and shot a still on a FF body, then put that lens on the 80d - it now becomes 50/1.4 x 1.6, or 80mm 2.24. This is *exactly* the same thing this EOS-R is doing in UHD mode - but even worse!!! SMH...

No one is saying the EXPOSURE is different. The same intensity of light is hitting the sensor. I am saying all things being equal, a larger sensor gathers more total light and has less read noise than a smaller one. Have you forgotten that the micro 4/3rds cameras struggle past ISO 1600? This isn't about crop or camera exposure, but equivalent DOF. You can't multiply the focal length without multiplying the effective aperture. This is why the Nokton F/0.95 25mm is roughly a 50mm F/2 in FF terms. Same rule is reversed when you go the other way. Instead of having the full 24x36 sensor "gather" light for your video, the Canon in this case, it's the (almost) S16 dead center of the sensor "gathering" light. Andrew gets it - the 28-70 F2 when shooting UHD on the EOS R is roughly a 48-117mm F3.5.

Not confused at all. We're talking about total light gathering and equivalent noise and ISO. The A7r2 is a bad example as the S35 mode is cleaner since the "binning" of the FF means at ISO 3200 and above it's loses detail and gets noisy quickly. But you'll notice the A7sII is the opposite - no crop and using the entire sensor for the 4k. The Canon 50 1.2 while shooting 4k video is really a 85 F/2 equivalent.

Imagine one of those vloggers actually wanting to take a still with a 10-18 STM lens on there. Oops. But they're asking for my hard earned $2300 in this generation.

I've done Panasonic, Canon, Sony, Samsung. May have to look into Nikon since Canon is wasting my time here.

Wrong it's simple physics. Go find a dark room on a sunny day. Punch a small hole in the wall, then a large one. Which one illuminates the room more? It's not rocket science. Light intensity is the same but the gathering is *not*. All things being equal with sensors (exact same technology) a FF will gather ~2.2 stops more light than an APS-C one. I don't have cameras that allow me to toggle between FF and APS-C, but the image quality / read noise will be worse and/or the ISO will go up to compensate. Sorry you don't believe this, but it's really not tough. A large mirror will reflect more light than a small one. Think about this for a minute - the EOS R is *only* using the very center of the sensor to gather light.

How can the light gathering be the same when you're only using the center of the sensor to gather light? No, it does change. Next time it rains heavily, put small buckets and large buckets next to one another. Which one gathers more total water? The light intensity is the same, but alas, the light gathering is not. You could make the argument if it were pixel binning (and still using the entire sensor). But you're not - it's clearly using almost a damn S16 size sensor for UHD.

You forgot to multiply by 1.7 for the DOF. So, 85mm and effective F/2. Couple of stops lost.

I just can't buy a FF 1080 only camera in almost 2019. Just can't. Would way rather get the A7S III when it's released. 1.2-1.3x crop I could have dealt with. At launch shooting UHD, the widest you can go natively (without adapters) is 24mm @ F/4 x 1.67 - effectively 40mm @ F/6.7 in FF terms. Blech.

Does not list the output resolution of HDMI though. Only states "On the plus side, the EOS R does have 4:2:2 10-bit video output externally via the HDMI port (internally, it's 8-bit)."