Canon EOS R full frame mirrorless talk hots up

[noone]

On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 10:11 AM, Yurolov said:

Yes its true but if you put ef lenses on an a7riii you are really compromising the autofocus and do you want to do that when you are spending 3k on a new camera? Probably not. Even if you do go down that route, which they did in the video, they put the price for an adapter on the canon bringing it up to 2.5k (choosing the more expensive adapter), but fail to mention that you will be paying 400 for the metabones adapter for the sony to get ef lenses to work lol. It is just a dishonest review, but it doesn't matter because at the end of the day like you said people will realise just how expensive it is to change systems and will bulk at the price considering how little difference there really is between cameras.

For canon shooters like myself who own ef lenses getting a sony will literally cost me thousands more than the canon. There is just no rational reason for me to make the move at that price when the eos r gives me some great features that the sony cant match and where the sony is ahead it isn't worth thousands of dollars lol.

The c100 is a great camera, I miss mine ha ha.    

Sure there are lots of second hand cheaper Canon lenses and some great bargains nut you do get what you pay for.

I don't find Sony lenses to be dearer than similar Canon lenses generally for what you get.

The two most expensive lenses I have bought are both manual focus Canon tilt shift lenses (that work better on Sony FF mirrorless for me than DSLRs- they should be very nice on the new Canon  but not necessarily better than on Sony), after that a Sony Zeiss 55 1.8, a Tamron adaptall MF, A Canon EF 135 f2, a few Canon FD L lenses and then a Sony 85 1.8 so all over the place.       Yes, you can buy a cheap 50 1.8 for Canon against the price of the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 but if canon made the 55 1.8 it would have an L red ring and be just as expensive (the EF Canon 50 1.8 I had was ok but just another normal lens).

Metabones isn't the ONLY smart adapter for EF lenses on Sony either (I have four different ones that range in price from(well under $100 US for a Fotga to a MB iv).

I own EF lenses many of which I got to use on Sony and for ME, getting the new Canon will be more expensive than getting a Sony (and besides the Canon wont take my three Sony FE lenses).

My current Canon EF mount lenses include a 17 f4 L TS-E, 20-35 2.8 L, 40 2.8 STM and Sigma 150 2.8 as well as a few cheaper zooms.     I have sold a 24 3.5 ii L TS-E, 135 f2 L, 100 f2, 100-300 5.6 L and some others.

I am currently using an old Canon DSLR for stills (my A7s is out of action) so I am going to have to spend some money on SOMETHING (if not fixing my A7s).       By the time I have saved enough, I still likely won't know what it will be but currently it is more likely to be Sony than Canon.

 

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, wolf33d said:

On my side I prefer shorter battery life, it allows me to focus on the essential.

Short battery life brings me back to the old glory days of real filmmaking, when swapping the film mags on a camera every few minutes gave you those precious few moments to discuss between the director/DoP/actors to focus on what we really need to improve on for the next take. None of that rush rush rush which we have in the digital age which makes quality suffer.

Swapping batteries every few minutes is just like swapping film mags! 

 

8 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Are we still ignoring the upsides? I suggest the first person getting one starts a new thread. I'm not preordering but I'm now 100% sure I won't be getting the Z6. It's now between the EOS-R and Panasonic FF if it turns out ok. 

 But.. if the rumor of the new GRiii I won't even care about other brands until spring

What has changed that made you 100% sure you won't get a Nikon Z6?
 

7 hours ago, Jimmy said:

He said directly before the quote you cherry picked that it was a con that Canon didn't have 4k/60p, hence why he had to shoot at 1080/60p and upscale.

There is plenty to bash, no need to make stuff up.

I didn't make anything up. Like you said, I quoted him. 
And that was exactly my point, he mentions the downside but immediately glosses right over it. 

[jonpais]

6 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

Beautiful colours in EOS R video, shame that the one above shows mostly over exposed footage. 

 

I was thinking the same thing. 

[Mattias Burling]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

What has changed that made you 100% sure you won't get a Nikon Z6?

The EOS-R. It ticks more boxes and brings alot of non-gimmick features to the table. Imo.

[JurijTurnsek]

Isn't anyone else annoyed that Canon keeps on naming their mirrorless models so inconsistently? It is very easy to distinguish the feature-level of their DLSRs, but with M and R, they just name it whatever they want. I think this just hints at how seriously they are taking this market. Is the higher resolution body be named RDr or R MAX or who the hell knows. I can't recall any other brand doing the same (except for Leica).

[Mattias Burling]

I dont think I follow. I dont really see how they and Leica does it any more weirdly than any other brand. What specifically is it that you have trouble understanding?

[JurijTurnsek]

Canikon had a great naming scheme of the number of digits indicating the price/feature bracket. With the M series that naming scheme went full retard, but is now slowly coalescing towards the same principle (but it took them many iterations to get there). Then they start the R line the same way.

On the other hand, Nikon has a clear naming convention for their Z line, as does Sony and everyone else. Each model is properly named, differentiated and placed in the product line. It makes sense to assure the consumer that you are going to maintain different models for different uses and just upgrade them every few years - one for max resolution, one do-it-all basic model and a sports model etc. Now try to remember the confused M line models and try to extrapolate any sensible model strategy for the future.

As a side note - Sony has been inconsistent in their APS-C (NEX) line naming as well - they have a much more consistent approach in their FF line.

[Mattias Burling]

Ok, I still dont understand how it's confusing but I guess it depends on what one is used to. I read about cameras every day so I guess Im used to all variants.

On a completely different note. This was a refreshing video. Focusing on the ups and downs of all systems.

 

[Jimmy]

38 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

On a completely different note. This was a refreshing video. Focusing on the ups and downs of all systems.

 

He's bang on.... There are (and always will be) pros and cons to every camera. If a certain camera checks the right boxes for you, great... If not, grab what you have and go hone your skills. It's really that simple. 

The idea that he is just some paid up Canon mouthpiece just because he didn't completely loose his shit about the crop factor seems misguided. He just  understands that all these cameras are pretty great, but have their own flaws, especially in the $2K and under bracket. 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

Canikon had a great naming scheme of the number of digits indicating the price/feature bracket. With the M series that naming scheme went full retard, but is now slowly coalescing towards the same principle (but it took them many iterations to get there). Then they start the R line the same way.

On the other hand, Nikon has a clear naming convention for their Z line, as does Sony and everyone else. Each model is properly named, differentiated and placed in the product line. It makes sense to assure the consumer that you are going to maintain different models for different uses and just upgrade them every few years - one for max resolution, one do-it-all basic model and a sports model etc. Now try to remember the confused M line models and try to extrapolate any sensible model strategy for the future.

As a side note - Sony has been inconsistent in their APS-C (NEX) line naming as well - they have a much more consistent approach in their FF line.

I agree, once  you get the knack of Nikon's naming then it is very easy to follow along. 

Kinda true of Canon, but they're got a few silly things going on which Nikon doesn't do. Such as T3i vs 600D, why???

2 hours ago, Jimmy said:

The idea that he is just some paid up Canon mouthpiece just because he didn't completely loose his shit about the crop factor seems misguided. He just  understands that all these cameras are pretty great, but have their own flaws, especially in the $2K and under bracket. 

 Except the Canon EOS R is over $2K

[Jimmy]

Oh yea, that $300 makes all the difference. All cameras in the $2300 and above range have zero compromises.  

[Vintage Jimothy]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Oh yea, that $300 makes all the difference. All cameras in the $2300 and above range have zero compromises.  

Obviously there are compromises, that's just inevitable, but compare it to the competition it's supposed to be targeting (the Sony A7iii and Nikon Z6). I'm just one person, but while there are obviously some very exciting things about the new R line (especially the lenses), the camera itself just feels like it falls short compared to its two obvious competitors... and it's overpriced compared to either camera at that.

That's part of what doomed the Fuji X-H1 earlier this year when Sony announced the A7iii mere weeks afterward for a similar price range (and in fact was less expensive if you bought the X-H1 with the battery grip for its full potential IIRC). 

Hugh Brownstone nailed it IMO. 

 

 I'm not saying that the EOS-R is a bad camera. I haven't touched one myself, and I doubt I'll get the chance anytime soon personally, so I can't really comment on that. But at the end of the day, the price is inevitably a factor here since this camera doesn't just exist inside a vacuum. The context of the camera market and what other options are out there now to compare the EOS-R to factor in with that price and the camera just seems like it's bound to fall short for most.

[jonpais]

Cameras at all price brackets involve compromises or trade-offs. ?

[Vintage Jimothy]

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

Cameras at all price brackets involve compromises or trade-offs. ?

Yup. There's no such thing as "the perfect camera."

If some people here end up preferring the EOS-R over its competition, then that's great! Everyone has different tastes and want different things out of their cameras. Personally speaking though, it's hard to think of enough reasons to justify spending that extra $300 for the EOS-R compared to the A7iii or Z6 or the extra $800 if you're considering something like the Fuji X-T3. It's just a question of what ends up happening regarding the majority of the market compared to the minority. 

[Mattias Burling]

For me its just a matter of a simple pros and cons list. Price is of course one thing to put on the list as well. But in the case of the EOS-R its not pricier enough to outweigh its positive aspects compared to for example the A7iii or Z6. But I have no problem finding reasons to why buying any of them is a smart move. They all seem fine to me. Its the details separating them imo.

[Django]

4 hours ago, Vintage Jimothy said:

Yup. There's no such thing as "the perfect camera."

If some people here end up preferring the EOS-R over its competition, then that's great! Everyone has different tastes and want different things out of their cameras. Personally speaking though, it's hard to think of enough reasons to justify spending that extra $300 for the EOS-R compared to the A7iii or Z6 or the extra $800 if you're considering something like the Fuji X-T3. It's just a question of what ends up happening regarding the majority of the market compared to the minority. 

Specs sheet of a body isn't everything. You are investing in a system so you can't dissociate glass in the equation. furthermore nobody here has even held an EOS-R, Z6 or XT3. the actual experience of handling & using a camera goes beyond reading a spec list. that is why jared polin's video above is interesting giving you a perspective based on actual user experience. not speculation or biased opinion (minus omitting fuji).

Personally, i've shot & own glass from Canon, Nikon, Sony & Fuji. I could really go either way in my upcoming purchase and it's kind of been a tough decision as there really are pros & cons in everyone of these new cameras. In the end I'm leaning towards EOS-R. In fact i've got one on pre-order. Then again my 5D & C100 remain my favorite go to cameras despite the fact being considered totally obsolete by the majority. I just love Canon ergonomics, colors, lenses & dual pixel AF is the cherry on top (once you get used to it, its just very hard being satisfied with any other AF system). On the tech side, ALL-I codec is a plus, C-Log is easy peasy to grade and with 10-bit 4:2:2, IQ should be excellent for more serious projects.

Yeah the 4K crop factor sucks, oh well I still deliver everything in 1080p. 4k will be for close-up shots (50mm F1.2 will become a 85mm F1.8).  guess reliability/peace of mind is also a final decision factor. Never had an issue with a Canon. Knock on wood.

 

[IronFilm]

12 hours ago, Django said:

guess reliability/peace of mind is also a final decision factor. Never had an issue with a Canon. Knock on wood.

I've been reading an on going saga of a horror story with someone's C200 recently:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?361514-My-C200-is-DOWN!

 

[Django]

@IronFilm Doesn't sound that bad.. dude seems pretty wrekcless shooting by sea shore, boats.. with sand, water, salt spray etc.. when cine cams like that aren't even weather sealed!! And in the end Canon serviced his out of warranty camera free of charge. Believe me that's pretty mild compared to the numerous Nikon D750 recalls, which mine was affected and took months to get replaced (Nikon Europe run out of parts and had to order from China factory wit boat delivery). That's one of the main reasons I left Nikon and went back to Canon, who still make their FF gear in Japan. I am very glad to hear though that the Z6/Z7 will be manufactured in the Sendai factory (which only the D5/F6/DF are still built).

[Yurolov]

19 hours ago, Vintage Jimothy said:

But at the end of the day, the price is inevitably a factor here since this camera doesn't just exist inside a vacuum. The context of the camera market and what other options are out there now to compare the EOS-R to factor in with that price and the camera just seems like it's bound to fall short for most.

Have you done a comparison of the prices with lenses bearing in mind most people will be buying used ef lenses and the 99 dollar adapter? . I did the calculations for myself, being the owner of ef glass, and to get a sony it would be more expensive by a couple thousand. So I'd say that's a pretty big incentive for people to continue with canon. But even if they are new to the game, do the calculations for yourself and see which is more expensive for you based on the lenses you use. 

   

[IronFilm]

38 minutes ago, Yurolov said:

I did the calculations for myself, being the owner of ef glass, and to get a sony it would be more expensive by a couple thousand. So I'd say that's a pretty big incentive for people to continue with canon.

It is pretty financially painless to switch and change between Canon and Nikon however, if you are buying and selling secondhand. 

Check out this autofocus performance with ADAPTED lenses (not native) in this first generation FX mirrorless camera from Nikon: