Canon EOS R full frame mirrorless talk hots up

[Snowbro]

7 hours ago, MdB said:

Ugh, not this again. That is with dual pixel RAW. Not dual pixel AF, while shooting RAW. Dual pixel RAW is capturing data at both image sites and enabling things like micro AF adjustment after the fact. 

Servo AF (which is dual pixel AF continuous) while shooting (RAW or JPEG or RAW+JPEG) is 5fps. 

I could make just as similar lists about Canon. 

Yes because they are meant to be competing products derp derp

Oh yeah my bad, the actual direct competition only has exactly double the fps and triple the buffer in raw. 

[Snowbro]

10 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Yeah sure. All those pro's out there with Canon DSLRs are idiots. Thats the reason. And of course they all shoot flowers. No one is working with sports, portrait, news or anything. I'm with you, your personal needs and preferences should be applied to all. 

Btw, its lunch time here soon, what are you having, so I can buy the same? Wouldn't want to be the idiot that buys the wrong food..

I think you are missing the point. I, along with many Canon users are sick of them purposely under providing, through software crippling. If you look at the market segmentation for this price point, it doesn't make any sense in late 2018/early 2019. They flat out admitted to gimping cameras to protect the higher end ones. What is frustrating about the supposed spec sheet on this camera, is that it is far behind in photo and video to the competition. 

 

It's not just one or 2 things they left out compared to the competition, its multiple:

• Severe 4k crop
• No IBIS
• No 120p FHD
• No Log
• 5FPS burst w/AF & 28 frame buffer vs 10FPS/89 frame buffer
• Likely omission of 10-bit

I really hope that when they announce the camera, some of those things won't be a problem. I could see them having a FF 4k mode, log and 10 bit external as some possible features not listed in the specs pdf. If it doesn't, that won't hurt me much, I have their flagship. It would have been nice however, to have a mirrorless from them that is on par to what else is out there for when I travel. 

[Andrew Reid]

20 hours ago, Yurolov said:

Really you just have to look how many comments there are on dpreview for this one rumour to realise how popular this thing will be. People don't seem to realise that though this camera may not be the best option for a very niche set of people, if it is priced well, it will be seen as the be all and end all for the majority of people (including vloggers) who are the largest subset of sales. 10bit and no crop is only important to a minority of people.

I partly agree, but you buy an expensive full frame camera to shoot full frame don't you...

Pay the same money, and do it on the Z6.

Pay Canon and you get 1.75x crop.

It's not acceptable.

And I don't care about 10bit nearly as much as I care about the wide angle of my $2000 lens.

Quote

The truth is that the flippy screen, autofocus, color, ergos and touch interface is a lot more important for your run of the mill consumer. Canon knows what's important to the majority of the people. I used to own a 200d (base model dslr) and a a6500. The 200d had a magnificent touch interface like a smartphone. The a6500 felt like it was from the 80s using the interface. Same goes with fuji. For a beginner to intermediate that's what's important, not 10 bit, no crop.

I agree.

But the EOS R is a $4000+ investment for most people, certainly not a 200D or a beginner to intermediate camera.

Probably $2000+ for the body and the same again for new lenses.

Quote

I think canon's strategy is correct in that if you truly want good image quality out of a camera you should get a dedicated video camera.

I have directly compared dedicated video cameras like the C300 and C500 (I own one) to my mirrorless cameras.

Even the Samsung NX1's 4K is better than the C300, more cinematic, less moire and aliasing, just as good colour.

https://www.eoshd.com/2015/02/samsung-nx1-vs-canon-c300/

Or you could get a Sony. I preferred the A7S II over the FS5. A7 III is even better.

Or a Nikon.

Or a Panasonic.

Or a Fuji.

Or an Olympus.

Or a Blackmagic.

If someone is in the market for a pro video camera then they wouldn't be evaluating the EOS R at all or any of the other full frame mirrorless cameras, so it's an unrelated argument anyway.

Most people do not actually choose a C300 for the best image.

They just don't realise you can add NDs, larger battery and a pro audio interface to a mirrorless camera And want to look "PRO".

Quote

Despite everything sony gives you, the image is quite poor when compared to professional cinema cameras (heck, even the pocket cinema camera). 

I don't think the ALL-I 400Mbit 4K on the GH5 is "quite poor".

And the audience will notice the full frame look of a Sony A7 III before the notice codec subtleties.

The main issue is people can't fcking grade it!

I am curious what stuff you've watched from the camera and how well it was shot and graded.

[Yurolov]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

I partly agree, but you buy an expensive full frame camera to shoot full frame don't you...

Pay the same money, and do it on the Z6.

Pay Canon and you get 1.75x crop.

It's not acceptable.

And I don't care about 10bit nearly as much as I care about the wide angle of my $2000 lens.

In practical terms, if you have a 16-35, or anything relatively wide, will it really mean that much to you? Perhaps. My point is that most people won't know the difference/care. The other considerations are in my view more important. 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

I have directly compared dedicated video cameras like the C300 and C500 (I own one) to my mirrorless cameras.

Even the Samsung NX1's 4K is better than the C300, more cinematic, less moire and aliasing, just as good colour.

https://www.eoshd.com/2015/02/samsung-nx1-vs-canon-c300/

Or you could get a Sony. I preferred the A7S II over the FS5. A7 III is even better.

Or a Nikon.

Or a Panasonic.

Or a Fuji.

Or an Olympus.

Or a Blackmagic.

If someone is in the market for a pro video camera then they wouldn't be evaluating the EOS R at all or any of the other full frame mirrorless cameras, so it's an unrelated argument anyway.

Most people do not actually choose a C300 for the best image.

They just don't realise you can add NDs, larger battery and a pro audio interface to a mirrorless camera And want to look "PRO".

I think we are in agreement in that if you are seeking an Eos R you shouldn't be expecting cinematic results, but where we disagree is that I include the mirroless cameras in your list (sony, pana, fuji, etc) in the same category (excluding blackmagic). People interested in mirroless cameras in my view are, or should be, more interested in the advances that canon has made than the specs that sony gives you, and I think the market will react accordingly. Your article presents a valid point but I have to disagree having seen these cameras perform on the big screen (not the nx1, granted). I appreciate this is a difference in opinion, but the differences in IQ between the C300 and the mirroless cameras were pretty stark to me, notwithstanding any resolution deficiencies the c300 may have. If i was doing production or film work I would choose the c300 all day long over a as7iii or nx1 - so where does this leave them (nx1 and a7siii) in the market? Seems pretty niche to me. 

My main point is that if you are going to be doing work with a mirrorless camera, then of necessity that work really shouldn't require the kinds of advances that sony has made; the advances canon has made are much more relevant. The perfect example is clog and slog and the respective expertise required to grade these log profiles. The usability and ergonomics and time spent in post are all more important. For the kinds of things that most people will be using these for, autofocus and flippy screen might be the most important yet. This doesn't excuse canon, but I think they know their market better than anyone here.  

[MdB]

2 hours ago, Snowbro said:

think you are missing the point. I, along with many Canon users are sick of them purposely under providing,

I don’t entirely disagree, I am sick of that. 

2 hours ago, Snowbro said:

not just one or 2 things they left out compared to the competition, its multiple:

• Severe 4k crop
• No IBIS
• No 120p FHD
• No Log
• 5FPS burst w/AF & 28 frame buffer vs 10FPS/89 frame buffer
• Likely omission of 10-bit

 

2 hours ago, Snowbro said:

could see them having a FF 4k mode, log and 10 bit external as some possible features not listed in the specs pdf. If it doesn't, that won't hurt me much, I have their flagship.

Yes we get it, you have a 1DX II, which also:

has a severe 4K crop 

No IBIS

No Log

Omission of 10bit

Yet you’re so unaffected that this camera won’t have those things because your camera... also doesn’t have those things. 

Mans yes, Sony put their top video features in their video flagship (in mirrorless). Panasonic put their top video features in their video flagship (in mirrorless). How hard is it to understand that this is probably not a video-centric model or ‘video flagship’? The whole system isn’t written into stone by one model. 

Yes 5fps is kinda lame with AF. I’ve been saying for a long time that despite how good DPAF is, Canon don’t have the tech to support around it. Their blackout between shots will also almost certainly be horrendous compared to the competition.  

[Snowbro]

A 1.3x crop isn't exactly severe. Log doesn't matter that much on 8 bit, it will be great on 10 bit though. Yes, we get it, you are a Canon apologist. 

[noone]

Even a 1.3x crop would kill it for me for video.       There are (plenty of) times that my 17 TS-E is just right but at 22mm, not so much.       If I want to use it AT 17mm FF for video, it seems I would still need to use it on a Sony (where I can ALSO use it as a 2x zoom for video as well as jpegs).

That said, for stills It might be ok for me.

[Snowbro]

5 minutes ago, noone said:

Even a 1.3x crop would kill it for me for video.       There are (plenty of) times that my 17 TS-E is just right but at 22mm, not so much.       If I want to use it AT 17mm FF for video, it seems I would still need to use it on a Sony (where I can ALSO use it as a 2x zoom for video as well as jpegs).

That said, for stills It might be ok for me.

If you already have a bunch of Canon glass, it will be an awesome stills camera, unless you need faster than 5fps. I think some people are missing the point on it; it is lacking many features that all the other big manufactures are including in the same price range. You don't need eye af or ibis to take great pictures, I just think its funny that Canon will exclude them (they have the tech), because they know people will buy it anyway. That is my entire point really. 

If Canon prices it lower than the A7iii and the Z6, I think that would be a good strategy with a fair price. Then later release a more professional model. We can only speculate at the moment, in a few days we will have a much clearer picture. I am excited for the new lenses, but I do wonder why the new RF 50mm 1.2 weighs almost a pound heavier than the EF version?

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, Yurolov said:

In practical terms, if you have a 16-35, or anything relatively wide, will it really mean that much to you? Perhaps. My point is that most people won't know the difference/care. The other considerations are in my view more important.

It means a lot to some of us. Almost every project, I end up using an ultra wide (10mm on APS-C) on a few shots. Yes, I can put that 10mm on a cropped full frame for video, but then as soon as I want to take a picture I'm cropping half those 30 megapixels out, or changing lenses. I'd rather just buy an APS-C camera in the first place.

[MdB]

13 hours ago, Snowbro said:

A 1.3x crop isn't exactly severe.

What do you define as severe? 1.3x crop is annoying and rubbish. You can't use APS-C lenses and yet makes FF lenses significantly less wide. 

13 hours ago, Snowbro said:

Log doesn't matter that much on 8 bit, it will be great on 10 bit though.

Arguably it is more useful for 8bit than 10bit. 

13 hours ago, Snowbro said:

Yes, we get it, you are a Canon apologist. 

Yes I get it, you're a 1DX II apologist because you own one. 

[DBounce]

8 minutes ago, MdB said:

Yes I get it, you're a 1DX II apologist because you own one. 

1DX II apologist? Who needs to apologize for the 1DXMK2? It’s a great camera. Frankly, if you can’t do anything worthwhile with a camera as good as the 1DXMK2 you would be a lost cause with any camera. 

I’m just the messenger?

[newfoundmass]

Caleb Pike is streaming the event

 

[jonpais]

Painful to watch. is it being shot on the EOS R?

[Robert Collins]

Wow... 4K 120p....

[jonpais]

and organic sensor with global shutter...

[newfoundmass]

The most interesting thing so far is the mount, and lenses. Being able to adjust the ISO with your lens is pretty awesome. 

10 bit 4:2:2 via HDMI out, too, but only 4K 30p.

[PabloB]

 

[Django]

Canon Log & Focus Guides is a go! 

[toxotis70]

c log is internal ?

[newfoundmass]

6 minutes ago, toxotis70 said:

c log is internal ?

They didn't specify but I believe so

Very strange they didn't announce a price. 

Overall nothing earth shattering, but the EF adaptability sounds promising, with one of the adapters even adding the ability to change iso/etc via the lens itself. 

10 bit 4:2:2 via HDMI is nice, as if C-Log. 

No info on crop, etc. Guessing that info will come out in a bit once everyone gets to shoot with it and ask questions. 

They stressed very hard that this is an addition to the EOS system, not a replacement, which was also kinda weird. 

Updated: Caleb Pike says NO CROP in 4k when shooting FF