Canon EOS R first impressions - INSANE split personality camera

[BTM_Pix]

10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Got any shots from it?

I can get one on Amazon for £340!

I put some stuff on the lenses thread from it. 

The one I got will need shaving fractionally as it won't hit infinity on the M adapter on the SL but I'm led to believe that not all of them do. 

Shallow :

And not so shallow :

 

 

[Mattias Burling]

19 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Got any shots from it?

I can get one on Amazon for £340!

EDIT: remembered I did a video as well. Also in my latest M8 video its pretty much 7artisans only.

 

 

[Andrew Reid]

Veery nice. Were those F1.1?

Another fast lens to check out is the Minolta MD 58mm F1.2. I've never had anything for the price come as close to the look of the Leica Noctilux F1 as that lens. Here a shot I did in Berlin the other week, this was on medium format so cheating a bit Makes it look like an F0.95. Do you still have your MF speed booster?

16 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I put some stuff on the lenses thread from it. 

The one I got will need shaving fractionally as it won't hit infinity on the M adapter on the SL but I'm led to believe that not all of them do. 

Great, will have a look!

[Mattias Burling]

@Andrew Reid yeah its all f1.1. I could have glued it in that position. Another option for you as travel safe option to the Leica f1 is the Canon 50mm 0.95, ,1.0 or 1.2 (I think those are the models). Also a mojo-beast.

That Minolta is on my Radar.

[Andrew Reid]

Yes Canon 50mm F0.95 has mojo but that's another fragile, rare old lens and $3k. Always wanted one. I will wait until a miracle happens and I find it for £10 in a bucket.

I also like the look of the EF 50mm F1.0 but again very expensive. That one is a heavy beast as well.

And all wasted in 1.8x crop on the EOS R

[Mattias Burling]

Just now, Andrew Reid said:

Yes Canon 50mm F0.95 has mojo but that's another fragile, rare old lens and $3k. Always wanted one. I will wait until a miracle happens and I find it for £10 in a bucket.

I also like the look of the EF 50mm F1.0 but again very expensive. That one is a heavy beast as well.

And all wasted in 1.8x crop on the EOS R

$3K.. damn, I passed on one for $700 a few months back. Should have gone for it

Kipon said they soon will have a lot of adapters for it. You probably will be able to get the 35mm f0.95 on there.

[Mokara]

19 hours ago, tyger11 said:

I thought I read that the RF mount is closed, so to not expect any third party lenses (at least none with AF) until reverse engineering is done, maybe never? I'd never invest in this system until that question is answered, unless one intends to stick with Canon lenses.

I'm done giving this company money; not even going to be buying Canon lenses going forward.

You will probably get manual lenses/converters fairly quickly, but the new lenses probably communicate digitally with the camera and that means IP will be blocking anyone else from making a lens that will work with the system unless they have Canon's approval.

Although you will probably get obscure companies in places like China where no one cares about the rules making stuff that can communicate electronically.

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

$3K.. damn, I passed on one for $700 a few months back. Should have gone for it

If I were you, I'd have a look if it is still there

[Mattias Burling]

That's crazy!

[Trek of Joy]

I would still go XT3 or a73/a7r3 over EOS-R anything. Canon really missed the mark (pun intended). Despite some not liking Sony's colors, if you want a hybrid, better stills Sony and raws are easy to make look like Canon. Used a7r3's are about the same price as a EOS-R. I'd still go Z6 too and just adapt other Nikon/Sigma/Zeiss lenses.

DPAF is the only feature I'd like about this camera, the sensor is just so underwhelming compared to the competition.

Swing and a miss.

Chris

[webrunner5]

5 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

I would still go XT3 or a73/a7r3 over EOS-R anything. Canon really missed the mark (pun intended). Despite some not liking Sony's colors, if you want a hybrid, better stills Sony and raws are easy to make look like Canon. Used a7r3's are about the same price as a EOS-R. I'd still go Z6 too and just adapt other Nikon/Sigma/Zeiss lenses.

DPAF is the only feature I'd like about this camera, the sensor is just so underwhelming compared to the competition.

Swing and a miss.

Chris

Yeah but the X-T3 ends up about the same crop as the EOS R does in 4K. And you have Canon colors, DPAF, and it appears somehow half decent electronic stabilization , not counting 50 million half cheap lenses. Is it great, well heck no, but it is probably better at Photos than the Fuji. Sure it is more money. But with Fuji lenses they sort of Only work on a Fuji. You can use Canon lenses on about anything anymore. I can't see a person gaining that much going Fuji in the long run. There is No upward mobility if you are serious about video.

I am not saying it is a bad camera, it is just a odd duck to be honest for the average person to go to if you don't have a sack full of Fuji lenses laying around. I think for the average person the EOS R is probably the way to go. Canon is just stupid as of late, but damn it their stuff somehow just works for video like them or not. They don't have one camera, cheap or expensive, that you can't get some damn good, pretty footage out of, shit Codec, or Killer Codec.. And if you are a Pro photographer you are probably shooting with a Canon.

Now the Sony A7 mk III is a good option I think also. Sony color has gotten way better. I think the A7s mk III is going to be a breakthrough camera with a breakthrough price sad to say.

[thebrothersthre3]

10 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but the X-T3 ends up about the same crop as the EOS R does in 4K. And you have Canon colors, DPAF, and it appears somehow half decent electronic stabilization , not counting 50 million half cheap lenses. Is it great, well heck no, but it is probably better at Photos than the Fuji. Sure it is more money. But with Fuji lenses they sort of Only work on a Fuji. You can use Canon lenses on about anything anymore. I can't see a person gaining that much going Fuji in the long run. There is No upward mobility if you are serious about video.

I am not saying it is a bad camera, it is just a odd duck to be honest for the average person to go to if you don't have a sack full of Fuji lenses laying around. I think for the average person the EOS R is probably the way to go. Canon is just stupid as of late, but damn it their stuff somehow just works for video like them or not. They don't have one camera, cheap or expensive, that you can't get some damn good, pretty footage out of, shit Codec, or Killer Codec.. And if you are a Pro photographer you are probably shooting with a Canon.

Isn't it 1.8 vs 1.5? If you don't need high speed shooting yeah the difference isn't that big. I honestly don't think the Canon would be superior for photos aside from having the shallow DOF advantage. 

[webrunner5]

24 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Isn't it 1.8 vs 1.5? If you don't need high speed shooting yeah the difference isn't that big. I honestly don't think the Canon would be superior for photos aside from having the shallow DOF advantage. 

It is not really 1.8. More like 1.7. What the hell is that difference. Like unless it is side by side you would never know the difference. Canon has a zillion different Focal Lengths to use to make it up. Somehow m4/3, BMPCC cameras seem to be able to shoot video with an even as big or bigger crop. Canon color is Way more accepted as the gold standard than any other camera by miles and miles. I have Never seen a Fuji at a sporting event, a press event. They have it sewed up like them or not. If you are going into business as a Photo, Video user you are probably going all in with Canon gear. Now for balls out Cine stuff sure Arri is your cup of tea if you have the money to throw at it all out. For mere mortals it is going to be a C100, C300.

.Also seems like every Cine camera in the world is going FF. Seems like somebody thinks DoF is a big deal. About every 3rd thread on here is knocking m4/3 or something about how it sucks for DoF, or how they are using a SB and a expensive 0.95 lens to get DoF. With DPAF you can probably get away with a f1.2 lens at times now on FF.

I agree with Andrew's assessment on the EOS R. It is in reality a damn good overall camera, warts and all. It somehow gets the job done, lagging behind or not. I am not buying one, too expensive for me. I would, might go the PK4 route when the true reviews come out. and I bet you will be able to buy a used one cheap 3 months down the road. It is not a good camera for many people truth be known.

But yeah for the money the Fuji X-T3 is a great buy, IF you have lenses for it. Starting from scratch.ehh not so sure.

[thebrothersthre3]

18 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

It is not really 1.8. More like 1.7. What the hell is that difference. Like unless it is side by side you would never know the difference. Canon has a zillion different Focal Lengths to use to make it up. Somehow m4/3, BMPCC cameras seem to be able to shoot video with an even as big or bigger crop. Canon color is Way more accepted as the gold standard than any other camera by miles and miles. I have Never seen a Fuji at a sporting event, a press event. They have it sewed up like them or not. If you are going into business as a Photo, Video user you are probably going all in with Canon gear. Now for balls out Cine stuff sure Arri is your cup of tea if you have the money to throw at it all out. For mere mortals it is going to be a C100, C300.

.Also seems like every Cine camera in the world is going FF. Seems like somebody thinks DoF is a big deal. About every 3rd thread on here is knocking m4/3 or something about how it sucks for DoF, or how they are using a SB and a expensive 0.95 lens to get DoF. With DPAF you can probably get away with a f1.2 lens at times now on FF.

I agree with Andrew's assessment on the EOS R. It is in reality a damn good overall camera, warts and all. It somehow gets the job done, lagging behind or not. I am not buying one, too expensive for me. I would, might go the PK4 route when the true reviews come out. and I bet you will be able to buy a used one cheap 3 months down the road. It is not a good camera for many people truth be known.

But yeah for the money the Fuji X-T3 is a great buy, IF you have lenses for it. Starting from scratch.ehh not so sure.

Sure though honestly I see tons of people using Nikon as well. I don't think DOF is a big thing but yeah its simply the latest thing. How often are people actually shooting wide open in reality? The bigger the better though. 

I'd be shooting Canon if money wasn't an issue for me. The C200 would be my choice, nothing better out there for video IMHO, though the XT3 comes close honestly. Which is why I am perfectly happy with it right now. 

[Mattias Burling]

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

If I were you, I'd have a look if it is still there

Just looked around a little and found the f1.2 LTM version for sub $1k, Its a "buy now" so Im sure they can be found cheaper.
Still thinking about pulling the trigger to try and spice up the X-H1 and M-RF adapters will happen.

Would be cool on my dream camera that is now reality. The Leica M10-D.
I loved the idea of an M-D but not based on the 240. Thats now fixed. I also loved my R-D1 with a regular advance lever instead of a noisy and battery consuming motor. That is also fixed.

Now I just need to win the lottery  

[hmcindie]

On 10/16/2018 at 10:10 AM, jonpais said:

Are you saying rolling shutter’s not such a big deal after all? Or that regardless of how poor a camera is, it will sell like hotcakes? ?

Oh no, I hate rolling shutter maybe more than most (as I like doing handheld stuff with snapzooms and all kinds of crazy things that RS destroyes). The thing is, we've had RS cameras now from since...The Sony HC1 and the Canon HV20 from 2005 onwards. After those came out, we haven't really shot anything without RS. Those cams (1/3" sensors) had about 20-25ms of RS and it looked horrible then and it still does.

The thing I was commenting was probably meant for another thread but it's this: The EOS R RS is nothing new. For example, the 5dmkIV has the same RS. The a6300/a6500 is pretty much the same at around 39ms. The original A7s (and the a7sII) is also about 30ms in 4k which isn't hugely far from the 5dmkIV. NX1 is 30ms. It's pretty much as bad as a RS can be at 30fps. So people wondering why aren't everyone commenting on it is probably because cameras with huge RS have been with us for a few years now. A lot of people use them in 1080p mode and that cuts the RS in half (that's what I tended to do with the a6300). And that is what people will probably be using with the EOS R.

I'm not saying it's good (I hate even the so-called fast RS of the C200 (16ms and you can see it easy)). Even a camera that people see in their minds as FAST - specifically the Sony RX10 ii onwards) has about 35ms of RS in 4k30p.

[Kisaha]

2 hours ago, hmcindie said:

A lot of people use them in 1080p mode and that cuts the RS in half (that's what I tended to do with the a6300). And that is what people will probably be using with the EOS R.

NX1 is a 2014 camera and its 1080p RS is close to the best in business.

If you don't mind the a6300 1080p then you won't mind anything at all, all is good!

[Jimmy]

2 hours ago, hmcindie said:

Oh no, I hate rolling shutter maybe more than most (as I like doing handheld stuff with snapzooms and all kinds of crazy things that RS destroyes). The thing is, we've had RS cameras now from since...The Sony HC1 and the Canon HV20 from 2005 onwards. After those came out, we haven't really shot anything without RS. Those cams (1/3" sensors) had about 20-25ms of RS and it looked horrible then and it still does.

The thing I was commenting was probably meant for another thread but it's this: The EOS R RS is nothing new. For example, the 5dmkIV has the same RS. The a6300/a6500 is pretty much the same at around 39ms. The original A7s (and the a7sII) is also about 30ms in 4k which isn't hugely far from the 5dmkIV. NX1 is 30ms. It's pretty much as bad as a RS can be at 30fps. So people wondering why aren't everyone commenting on it is probably because cameras with huge RS have been with us for a few years now. A lot of people use them in 1080p mode and that cuts the RS in half (that's what I tended to do with the a6300). And that is what people will probably be using with the EOS R.

I'm not saying it's good (I hate even the so-called fast RS of the C200 (16ms and you can see it easy)). Even a camera that people see in their minds as FAST - specifically the Sony RX10 ii onwards) has about 35ms of RS in 4k30p.

Yep, the Nikon Z7 looks pretty dreadful too in 4K, yet no one is really mentioning that in reviews either. I think people kind of expect it in 4K on a full frame sensor.

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

NX1 is a 2014 camera and its 1080p RS is close to the best in business.

If you don't mind the a6300 1080p then you won't mind anything at all, all is good!

Haha very true.

And all those 3/4 year old cameras hmcindie mentioned did not just come out last week, in the age of fast sensors! The EOS R did.

[ALFAOCS]

Actually I just purchased a Sony A7 III ($1,998.00) and the Full Frame Sony 28-135 f4 Lens ($1,499.00 ebay) which works like a charm in either full frame and Super 35 modes. The TOTAL is $3,497.00 (4K Camera and Cinema/ENG Full frame Lens)! If you can rack-up another $400 you could make the A7 III and ENG / Cinematic / 2 channel audio monster by adding the Sony XLR-K2M XLR Adapter Kit (used $402.00 Adorama)... and a $49 ND Filter just in case...
Therefore for less than $4,000.00, Sony gives you an excellent Cinema / ENG / Low-Light Monster including the ability to take 24MB photos...
I can't wait to see the next Sony A7S III, the next FS5 and the next FS7... and I'm getting ready to upgrade down the Sony Cinema line!

Andrew wrote:
"If you don’t own many Canon lenses all you need to buy is a Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 to do most things – the cost goes past $3000 but it can easily creep past $8000 on the Sony and Nikon side. I just can’t help feeling that Canon lost a lot of lens sales with that crop, when all you need to buy is a single Sigma zoom and maybe one of their ART primes."