Canon EOS R Series Cameras

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
The RP is now up on HDEW ... £1239, inc the EF adapter!
doesn't seem like that great a saving tbh.
EOS R can be had for £1359 grey also.
If you are ready to buy grey, might as well go with R for little more.
 
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
doesn't seem like that great a saving tbh.
EOS R can be had for £1359 grey also.
If you are ready to buy grey, might as well go with R for little more.
Where is that price for the R? HDEW include the adapter for the R for £1549. If I was going for either I'd go with them over the likes of Efinity I think. Too much risk with the aggresive customs over here.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
Where is that price for the R? HDEW include the adapter for the R for £1549. If I was going for either I'd go with them over the likes of Efinity I think. Too much risk with the aggresive customs over here.
yeah at e-infinity. most people seems to have imported just fine. I think the way they get over customs is by under valuing their items in post. I have never used e-infinity so I don't know for sure but that seems to be generally the case.
 
Messages
5,605
Edit My Images
Yes
I had brief play with the Canon EOS RP and the RF 24-104mm lens yesterday. :) The camera felt good in the hand, and it was only after a few minutes that I realised that my fingers were not actually hanging off the bottom. I must have small hands. :LOL: But then I wasn't trying to carry it around.

The lens seems quite large in comparison to the body, but felt comfortable cupped in the hand. Wide open it gave quite nice blurry backgrounds, at least on the LCD screen. I haven't had a go of the EOS R, but I wasn't impressed by the viewfinder. :(

The chap who owns the combo is very happy so far. :)
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
It doesn't really offer me any more than what I currently have apart from the price.
But the RF 35/1.8 is THE lens for me.
 
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
It doesn't really offer me any more than what I currently have apart from the price.
But the RF 35/1.8 is THE lens for me.
That's the one I would go for, that 24-105 does look good value for the cut price above but tbh, I think that's all it should be from the off if they really want to attract the budget photographer. The 35 1.8 is a little over too, but it'll come down, there'll be a bunch of them going used in a little while too I imagine. I could probably shoot 80+% of my style just using that and an adapted 85mm

Samyang are about to release a 14mm and 85mm for the RF mount but they will be MF only. This does = cheap though.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
That's the one I would go for, that 24-105 does look good value for the cut price above but tbh, I think that's all it should be from the off if they really want to attract the budget photographer. The 35 1.8 is a little over too, but it'll come down, there'll be a bunch of them going used in a little while too I imagine. I could probably shoot 80+% of my style just using that and an adapted 85mm

Samyang are about to release a 14mm and 85mm for the RF mount but they will be MF only. This does = cheap though.
I wouldn't go for MF unless it's UWA. But I am big fan of the EF 100mm f2. So I could adapt that.
Lenses are not a problem here... It's the bodies :(
 
Messages
19,996
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I wouldn't go for MF unless it's UWA. But I am big fan of the EF 100mm f2. So I could adapt that.
Lenses are not a problem here... It's the bodies :(
From the outside looking in it seems that the lenses are towards the higher end but the bodies are towards the lower end. I may be wrong but that's how it looks to me. It may be the right strategy. I'm not saying it isn't, it just surprises me a little.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
From the outside looking in it seems that the lenses are towards the higher end but the bodies are towards the lower end. I may be wrong but that's how it looks to me. It may be the right strategy. I'm not saying it isn't, it just surprises me a little.
Whatever their strategy, I need a more capable body.
 
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I wouldn't go for MF unless it's UWA. But I am big fan of the EF 100mm f2. So I could adapt that.
Lenses are not a problem here... It's the bodies :(
What exactly does the R lack body-wise for you? The only thing for me would be no IBIS, which I realise we're all pampered with these days and I could learn to live without it again. As for build quality I see nothing about the R lacking in comparison to any of the Sony models. The RP looks a bit lacking in that dept, but compared to what?
 
Messages
8,233
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
The lower priced bodies and what appears to be better backward compatibility with existing mount Canon Glass than either Nikon or Sony seem able to do with their DSLR mounts (A Mount / F Mount) is probably a good thing.

Many Canon DSLR users will look at the especially the EP and take a punt as its so cheap and live with their adapted glass while the system bulks out.

To be fair the two current bodies appear to be be similarly specced to their DSLR equivalents (RP v the 6dii and R v the 5DIV)
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
What exactly does the R lack body-wise for you? The only thing for me would be no IBIS, which I realise we're all pampered with these days and I could learn to live without it again. As for build quality I see nothing about the R lacking in comparison to any of the Sony models. The RP looks a bit lacking in that dept, but compared to what?
AF, dynamic range, FPS and pixels (in order of importance)
Note I haven't mentioned IBIS ;)
Though the pixel shift feature is very nice.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
To be fair the two current bodies appear to be be similarly specced to their DSLR equivalents (RP v the 6dii and R v the 5DIV)
Except for the parts where they are not ;)
AF for sports, FPS, build (R vs. 5D4)
I'd be more than happy with a RF body as capable as 5D4
 
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
AF, dynamic range, FPS and pixels (in order of importance)
Note I haven't mentioned IBIS ;)
Though the pixel shift feature is very nice.
You may not mention it but I bet you'd miss it if it were suddenly gone from your camera ;) I know I would. FPS is kinda meaningless to me, I'm in S-AF mode almost always. Pixels? Doesn't the R have more than the A7III? DR aye, but I feel that's over exaggerated in reviews, I've seen some vids that showed it's nowhere near as bad as some make out, and if you're shooting at anything above the base ISO the camera only gets better. And seeing as they are pretty decent performing at higher ISO - one of the factors that would be higher on my list, it really matters most for landscape - which I don't tend to do much of ... what I'm saying I guess is that it's all down to personal preference. If you have specific personal preference reasons for or against, nobody can argue with them
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
You may not mention it but I bet you'd miss it if it were suddenly gone from your camera ;) I know I would. FPS is kinda meaningless to me, I'm in S-AF mode almost always. Pixels? Doesn't the R have more than the A7III? DR aye, but I feel that's over exaggerated in reviews, I've seen some vids that showed it's nowhere near as bad as some make out, and if you're shooting at anything above the base ISO the camera only gets better. And seeing as they are pretty decent performing at higher ISO - one of the factors that would be higher on my list, it really matters most for landscape - which I don't tend to do much of ... what I'm saying I guess is that it's all down to personal preference. If you have specific personal preference reasons for or against, nobody can argue with them
Answering your points in order:
- I went from Sony A99 to A7 the latter with no IBIS. I was adapting a-mount glass too, most of them did not have OS either. Never had an issue. I appreciate IBIS and its useful but I am just as happy breaking out a tripod if needed. So I wouldn't miss it. Besides the 24-105mm and 35mm f1.8 both have IS. So doesn't matter for the most part anyway.
- Meaningless to you perhaps, meaningful to me (you did ask what it was lacking for me ;) ). I have few airshows, car shows and bird show booked this spring/summer. FPS is a valuable thing for these.
- I have A7RIII. So no to more pixels. I know I would miss this more than the IBIS too :D
- The R definitely isn't bad for dynamic range (matches Sony APS-C sensors at base ISO which I used to shoot previously with no issues). So I could live with that if that was the only downside. At higher ISO its very comparable to other FF as you mentioned, so no issues there.

But the more important issue above all these is the AF tracking which isn't at the level of 5D4 or A7RIII.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Answering your points in order:
- I went from Sony A99 to A7 the latter with no IBIS. I was adapting a-mount glass too, most of them did not have OS either. Never had an issue. I appreciate IBIS and its useful but I am just as happy breaking out a tripod if needed. So I wouldn't miss it. Besides the 24-105mm and 35mm f1.8 both have IS. So doesn't matter for the most part anyway.
- Meaningless to you perhaps, meaningful to me (you did ask what it was lacking for me ;) ). I have few airshows, car shows and bird show booked this spring/summer. FPS is a valuable thing for these.
- I have A7RIII. So no to more pixels. I know I would miss this more than the IBIS too :D
- The R definitely isn't bad for dynamic range (matches Sony APS-C sensors at base ISO which I used to shoot previously with no issues). So I could live with that if that was the only downside. At higher ISO its very comparable to other FF as you mentioned, so no issues there.

But the more important issue above all these is the AF tracking which isn't at the level of 5D4 or A7RIII.

Aha, you have the 7RIII, that makes more sense, thought you were on the III. Ironically, the first dslr I ever owned was a Sony [A200] and it had IBIS [steady shot] - that was over a decade back and I didn't own another body with the feature up until last year - and yet, I would find it hard to go without now! I mostly shoot 'stills' though and it's often more useful than better ISO performance for this.
 
Messages
19,996
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
- I have A7RIII. So no to more pixels. I know I would miss this more than the IBIS too :D
So what's lacking in the Sony for you?

The handling is often criticised but personally I have no problem with the smaller bodied and smaller grip first generation A7. I know the menus take a bashing but again I have no problems. Colours are often criticised too but for raws I have no problems and I'd put the light at the time and the lens before I'd think about colour as a body problem. But that's me and I dunno what you're unhappy with.

You have one of the best 35mm type cameras on sale and although I don't know exactly what you have I'd imagine that you have some of the best 35mm system lenses ever made. So what makes you lust after another similar system?
 
Messages
1,956
Edit My Images
No
Battery grip arrived today from Hdew including the optional USB C charger as noted by @RedRobin (thanks again for the heads up). It's a bit of a beast, the camera now feels really well balance with heavier lenses and it oozes quality. Very pleased!

Once pay day comes around i'll pick up the 70/200 2.8 mkIII :)
 
Messages
19,996
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
RF 35mm F1.8 macro equivalent
(And please don't mention the batis 40 because its not even close)
35mm macros seem to be a bit rare and at this moment I can't really think of another modern one. We know that the rumor site is expecting a Sony 35mm f1.8 at some point in the near future and that'll interest me unless it's too big, heavy and/or expensive. Until that arrives I'm mostly happy with the 35mm options I have and although the Batis hasn't really crossed my mind I do have the MF Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 which focuses quite close.

I can sort of see where you're coming from but I doubt I'd go through the expense and hassle of a system change for one lens. I'd settle for an ordinary non macro 35 and switch to a 50mm macro when needed or just add a close up filter or even just crop the picture.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
35mm macros seem to be a bit rare and at this moment I can't really think of another modern one. We know that the rumor site is expecting a Sony 35mm f1.8 at some point in the near future and that'll interest me unless it's too big, heavy and/or expensive. Until that arrives I'm mostly happy with the 35mm options I have and although the Batis hasn't really crossed my mind I do have the MF Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 which focuses quite close.

I can sort of see where you're coming from but I doubt I'd go through the expense and hassle of a system change for one lens. I'd settle for an ordinary non macro 35 and switch to a 50mm macro when needed or just add a close up filter or even just crop the picture.
The point isn't to have a 35mm lens, a F1.8 lens, a macro lens, a small travel friendly lens and a sharp fast AF lens. While I could buy 5 different lenses for each of the qualities, the point is having them all in one.

I would switch systems for one lens if all else were equal which it isn't right now.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I'm sure you're already aware, but for those who are not the RF 35mm 1.8 is 1:2 macro, not full on 1:1. It looks a beauty, the kind of lens I could happily keep on camera most of the time. I think when they start hitting the used market, and they will along with RP bodies, they will do very well.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm sure you're already aware, but for those who are not the RF 35mm 1.8 is 1:2 macro, not full on 1:1. It looks a beauty, the kind of lens I could happily keep on camera most of the time. I think when they start hitting the used market, and they will along with RP bodies, they will do very well.
I am aware of that :)
Most of the time that's all I need and it's a great option to have when traveling.
 
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I am aware of that :)
Most of the time that's all I need and it's a great option to have when traveling.
A simple add-on like a Raynox would swiftly turn it 1:1 either way. But as is, 1:2 for a bright 35mm like this is incredible. Looks to be pin sharp even wide open from what I've seen too
 
Messages
1,956
Edit My Images
No
The 70-200 that's being developed for the R series looks amazingly small. I wonder when that is coming out.
Everything i've read says it is still slated for 'late 2019'
It looks like that version is not a fixed length so good for traveling etc but I'd prefer the old EF version myself.
Agreed, while the lens looks very impressive i prefer internal zooming rather than the telescoping barrel. I also think the price will be eye watering considering the current pricing of the RF glass.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,457
Edit My Images
Yes
A simple add-on like a Raynox would swiftly turn it 1:1 either way. But as is, 1:2 for a bright 35mm like this is incredible. Looks to be pin sharp even wide open from what I've seen too
Yep. I'd hardly shoot macro at F1.8 anyway ;)
For a wide angle better to use extension tubes than raynox. Think 16-ish mm would do the trick to get it close enough to 1:1

It's not just that though, it's so small too.
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Yep. I'd hardly shoot macro at F1.8 anyway ;)
For a wide angle better to use extension tubes than raynox. Think 16-ish mm would do the trick to get it close enough to 1:1

It's not just that though, it's so small too.

You're right there, raynox is much better on longer FL

I'd get creative with a 1.8 1:2 - macro is one of few genres where 'bokeh' really shines IMO
 
Messages
11,278
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Most of my macro work is done in my room, in the dark using long exposures (example in signature link).
Nice, good to have all of the options in one though, suits many types of shooter. They really got it right on this one I think, hopefully there's more like it to come
 
Messages
181
Edit My Images
Yes
Got my R w/RF 24-105 + RF 35mm f1.8 this week. Coming from a 5D3 it's going to take some adjusting to!

Initial thoughts....

Low light focusing is amazing. This was one of the main reasons for switching and it's delivered what's promised. It looks like if it can't focus, there isn't enough light to take a picture with (unless you were on a tripod, on which case manual focus would be fine).

It's lovely and small/light with the RF35. With the 24-105 the size advantage over a 5d3 w/24-105 becomes less compelling. Unless you are using small lenses, the size / weight savings are a bit of a moot point IMHO.

USB-C charging works with a £30 Anker multi charger of Amazon. This is going to be great for a road trip we are doing this year to the US, as it's one charger to do all the phones and the camera. As per the manual, you have to turn off wifi to get it to charge.

In accordance with just about everyone on the internet, the touchscreen is great, the touchbar is a bit rubbish :-(

It worked really well with my Sigma 100-400 and Canon 85mm f1.8.

I shall not miss calibrating lenses one bit :)

The RF35mm is a little bit rough sounding (I thought STM was supposed to be quiet?) but image quality appears to be good.

I honestly think the video is great from this camera. I'd rather shoot 1080 as I have a computer that can edit it and the AF looks like it works well.

Wifi appears to work well with the app on the phone.


In short, for all the internet hate this camera gets, for my usage, it think it's going to be a winner :), I will probably get the Pro RF body when it's been out a year or so and the price has dropped, but for now, this is great.
 
Top