Canon FF mirrorless...

[Riz_Guru]

Simon Barker
Rix Guru
Johnnymendoza
woof woof

...............and what cameras do you currently own?

Thought so, yet again the Sony mafioso are on the attack with their spec sheets!

Why are you lot so unwilling to show the type of photography you do that makes eye AF such an important feature?

If you look at my replies since the moderators stated that we need to clam things down, my discussion is about Canon, I haven’t mentioned S##y once and only posted about Canon, I have even used Canon related links relating to Eye-AF and not F##i or S##y’s Eye-AF implementations.

Ive already apologised twice for my part in going off-topic.

If you dislike Eye-AF so much and deem it as unimportant then don’t get involved in discussions about it, regardless what you think, Canon do think it’s important hence why they are trying to bring it to the EOS R.

Let’s keep things on topic and not drag peoples personal preferences. e.g. what systems they own and what photos they take.

 

[redhed17]

Good to see normal service has resumed with the childish abuse being thrown around just because someone disagrees that 'Eye AF' is a huge game changer

What's childish? I think you are trolling for reactions with a lot of your posts that I have seen. If only trolling was only done by children.

And as for abuse, what I posted was neither 1. "use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse." or 2. "treat with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly."

And you seem to be against any AF apart certain situations, not just eye AF. While I take into account what works for me, I can also see the wider picture of what would be useful for most people.

Btw, talking of eye AF, have you used a camera that has it?

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Whilst I agree that may be useful it would lead to someone taking a high number of 'weird' portraits when only a couple of eyelashes are in focus with a DoF of mm?



If you are going to state that eye AF is a game changer for you then please post a link to a portfolio that shows why eye AF really suits your style of photography (very shallow DoF portraits?); back up your statement with evidence!

I'm sure the Canon ergonomics are fantastic; especially for someone who is used to shooting the brand

Is there a reason why a manufacturer would implement a feature (Eye AF) at a later date with a firmware update - is this an indication they are just trying to perfect it before it is released and just need more time?

Its not the shots in focus that are interesting but the ones that are not, or the lack of out of focus shots.
Given time anybody can get eyes in focus even with shallow dof. The question is how much time and how many missed does it take.

 

[Riz_Guru]

Good to see normal service has resumed with the childish abuse being thrown around just because someone disagrees that 'Eye AF' is a huge game changer

You didn’t just disagree, you started asking me to prove it, I provided you some useful Canon related Eye-AF links so that you might understand it’s benefits.
I’m sorry you took it the wrong way.

 

[Cagey75]

Getting eyes sharp on wide open portraits consistently is a massive plus for someone who does a lot of people photography

I get that, but, we managed to do it without the eye-AF tech in the past. My camera has face/eye detect, never use it, personal preference, maybe because I don't shoot people as much as I used to? I just prefer to single point select where to focus myself

 

[Cagey75]

Having used Eye-AF or different bodies from two different manufacturers, it’s a great feature to have as your disposal. Once you have experienced it and got used to it, it’s hard to go back to going to a body without it.

Eye-AF is nothing new and has been around for some time in the mirrorless world so not sure why you think nobody needed it, perhaps in the DSLR world this statement is true as they can’t do reliable Eye-AF

I rarely shoot much, too busy being a IT Consultant, however I have shot enough personal and paid work to realise Eye-AF’s benefits as apposed to not having it at all.

Why do I think Canon should have it, it’s because Canon will then interest me more and most likely others too.... the more features the better in my opinion.

Fair enough, I personally don't need it, just wondering if it was really that important. I don''t think so, I think it's become another crutch, I think we're getting lazier as tech improves but hey, may as well use it if it suits you

 

[Riz_Guru]

Fair enough, I personally don't need it, just wondering if it was really that important. I don''t think so, I think it's become another crutch, I think we're getting lazier as tech improves but hey, may as well use it if it suits you

I agree with what your saying, I guess it makes taking photos easier / quicker but then it takes away the element of having to work to get the money shot.
This in itself may take the fun out of photography.

 

[T_J_G]

I get that, but, we managed to do it without the eye-AF tech in the past. My camera has face/eye detect, never use it, personal preference, maybe because I don't shoot people as much as I used to? I just prefer to single point select where to focus myself

That's fine, but for others it's extremely useful. We never used to have autofocus so doesn't that mean people shouldn't use that. And what do you do if the eye it's outside of the AF points?

What I shoot means that eye-AF will be a major positive for me in the selection of my next camera. Whether or not it is for you is entirely dependant on how and what you photograph.

 

[Cagey75]

That's fine, but for others it's extremely useful. We never used to have autofocus so doesn't that mean people shouldn't use that. And what do you do if the eye it's outside of the AF points?

What I shoot means that eye-AF will be a major positive for me in the selection of my next camera. Whether or not it is for you is entirely dependant on how and what you photograph.

I can't imagine the eyes being outside the AF points, isn't eye-AF still using those points? just the closest one to the eye? but I hear ya, no harm to have it - I just don't think it should be a must when choosing a new camera. Not if it narrows down your options

 

[jonneymendoza]

Fair enough, I personally don't need it, just wondering if it was really that important. I don''t think so, I think it's become another crutch, I think we're getting lazier as tech improves but hey, may as well use it if it suits you

I disagree. These features make it easier for us to concentrate more on composition and story telling and less about worrying if a shot is in focus or not. It's one less thing to worry about. The evolution of tools in general is to make it easier for the person using the tools to not worry about it and concentrate more on the task at hand

 

[simonbarker]

Simon Barker
Rix Guru
Johnnymendoza
woof woof

...............and what cameras do you currently own?

Right now I own a Sony, a Canon and a Nikon camera but why do you need to keep making things personal? Wasn't ranting about how you didn't think much of the hifi's Sony made 20 years ago in the other thread being somehow relevant to the cameras they make enough embarrassment for you?

Thought so, yet again the Sony mafioso are on the attack with their spec sheets!

Where am I attacking anything? You asked a question you already knew the answer to and demanded photographs from their portfolio to back it up because for some reason you can't just talk to other people.

Why are you lot so unwilling to show the type of photography you do that makes eye AF such an important feature?

Why don't you address that question to the person who brought it up?

 

[Cagey75]

I disagree. These features make it easier for us to concentrate more on composition and story telling and less about worrying if a shot is in focus or not. It's one less thing to worry about. The evolution of tools in general is to make it easier for the person using the tools to not worry about it and concentrate more on the task at hand

If you have it, make use of it, that's fine, but is it really a deal breaker when choosing a new camera? I would say we're a bit pampered in that case.

 

[jonneymendoza]

If you have it, make use of it, that's fine, but is it really a deal breaker when choosing a new camera? I would say we're a bit pampered in that case.

If you have experience using it and have a need for it then yea its a deal breaker.

Also some people like to get the best for there money. Ie they will look at specs and compare the price.

So for instance you have a cheaper alternative to this canon camera that has more native lenses and more features. Many will compare like that.

Ask yourself. Why buy something more expensive with less features and add on tools (in This case native lenses) for more money?

Not many would do that

 

[Cagey75]

If you have experience using it and have a need for it then yea its a deal breaker.

Also some people like to get the best for there money. Ie they will look at specs and compare the price.

So for instance you have a cheaper alternative to this canon camera that has more native lenses and more features. Many will compare like that.

Ask yourself. Why buy something more expensive with less features and add on tools (in This case native lenses) for more money?

Not many would do that

I wouldn't put it really high on my list, as I said, I have it and rarely use it. I'd put many things before it when choosing new gear. Maybe I just haven't trusted in it enough to date, should give it more of a go? I'll give it a crack later, see how it goes

 

[T_J_G]

I can't imagine the eyes being outside the AF points, isn't eye-AF still using those points? just the closest one to the eye? but I hear ya, no harm to have it - I just don't think it should be a must when choosing a new camera. Not if it narrows down your options

They quite are often outside my AF points on the D750. But on a Sony the eye can be tracked all over the frame. It does narrow down my list of replacements but it's of HIGH importance to me. Having two card slots narrows my selection down but again it's a HIGH priority to me.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I wouldn't put it really high on my list, as I said, I have it and rarely use it. I'd put many things before it when choosing new gear. Maybe I just haven't trusted in it enough to date, should give it more of a go? I'll give it a crack later, see how it goes

What camera do you have? Just because a camera has eye af doesn't mean it's good. Some are better then others.

 

[Cagey75]

What camera do you have? Just because a camera has eye af doesn't mean it's good. Some are better then others.

Panasonic G80/85, just tried it, it's pretty good, follows the face and eye very well, it's not as customizable as the Sony eye AF perhaps. It's more face detect, and auto eye detect within that, you can switch between the eyes though

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

Im in no doubt Eye Af is a useful tool to have for a lot of people.

I put it in under the same general menu as Auto mode on a camera in some way.

Sometimes when im in a hurry and dont want to think too much i would use Auto mode but mostly i like to do most of the stuff myself,part of the hobby for me YMMV

however it must be a nice option to have to make life easier.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Im in no doubt Eye Af is a useful tool to have for a lot of people.

I put it in under the same general menu as Auto mode on a camera in some way.

Sometimes when im in a hurry and dont want to think too much i would use Auto mode but mostly i like to do most of the stuff myself,part of the hobby for me YMMV

however it must be a nice option to have to make life easier.

Yet a high percentage of street photographers where the immediacy of being able to grab 'the decisive moment' state manual focus is far superior to any autofocus sytem. The very best of the best in this genre managed without it - they used different techniques 'to crack the nut'.

Is it a case of the camera manufacturers/marketing men convince us we need certain features so they can sell us the very latest technology; have we become 'spec sheet whores'?

More settings/features on a camera IMO just makes it more likely you will get the settings wrong & the camera 'gets more in the way' - so many people ask for a 'back to basics camera' - Leica M10 - the perfect digital mirrorless camera IMO

AF focus tracking on moving subjects like birds in flight is a massive advantage though, but not a genre I choose to photograph hence AF isn't that important to me.

For me, the tactile feel, weight distribution and familiarity of a camera is far higher on the 'want list' and for a Canon user I can only guess that the Canon offering will feel far superior in most of their hands than any competitors offerings would.

 

[HoppyUK]

I can't imagine the eyes being outside the AF points, isn't eye-AF still using those points? just the closest one to the eye? but I hear ya, no harm to have it - I just don't think it should be a must when choosing a new camera. Not if it narrows down your options

Eye-AF doesn't use any fixed AF points. Neither does face-recognition nor subject-recognition. They all read custom clusters of pixels on the sensor, according to whatever the camera has been instructed to follow.

Eye-AF needs smart and sophisticated algorithms coupled to high resolution to identify such small details, which is automatically available with mirrorless on-sensor AF of course, and a powerful processor to compute a ton of constantly shifting data rapidly.

 

[woof woof]

Simon Barker
Rix Guru
Johnnymendoza
woof woof

...............and what cameras do you currently own?

Thought so, yet again the Sony mafioso are on the attack with their spec sheets!

Why are you lot so unwilling to show the type of photography you do that makes eye AF such an important feature?

Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Medion and Kodak.

I'm a Sony fan boy am I? but I had a Nikon for over 20 years so I'm a Nikon fan boy. I must be a Canon fanboy as because I had their slr's and dslr's for over 10 years and I'm a Panasonic fwn boy because I've had them for years but mostly I must be a Kodak fan boy as I've had one for over 45 years.

Can we please drop the fan boy accusations now.

 

[RedRobin]

Maybe your decision to wait is correct at this point, if you love the ergonomics of canon cameras then it's definately worth staying with them as you feel comfortable with their use.

Will it not always be the temptation to 'just wait' for the next generation though?

....Yes I do love the ergonomics and interface of Canon EOS cameras and I have Canon L lenses which I value.

At my age (71) I have at last realised that I am not immortal afterall and am not very inclined to wait. Ideally I need to get an EOS R physically in my hands to make a final decision.

(p.s. your wildlife shots are fantastic! )

....Thank you for such high praise! I always try my best and have been out taking more today and met another Canon wildlife photographer who turns out to be a good friend of a good friend. He was shooting with a 600mm F/4L II on a 1DX-2 and we were both shooting a Lesser Yellowlegs (a rare wader bird blown in to the UK by recent storms) at great distance. We got talking about Canon's EOS R and he is going to wait for a higher spec version but pointed out that without a mechanical shutter there would be less camera movement potentially affecting long distance shots adversely.

I think some of his wildlife shots are fantastic! : https://www.flickr.com/photos/93711578@N00/with/43307030750/

 

[RedRobin]

Eye-AF doesn't use any fixed AF points. Neither does face-recognition nor subject-recognition. They all read custom clusters of pixels on the sensor, according to whatever the camera has been instructed to follow.

Eye-AF needs smart and sophisticated algorithms coupled to high resolution to identify such small details, which is automatically available with mirrorless on-sensor AF of course, and a powerful processor to compute a ton of constantly shifting data rapidly.

....So this leads me to ask the question whether if dealing with all that data might slow down AF tracking, which in the case of shooting fast moving wildlife would be a bad thing.

I would hope that any eye-detection feature would have the option to disable it. Just the same as if I'm driving a car with an auto-stop-start feature I always switch it off because I prefer to be more in control. Please don't get me started on technology in cars which allow them to drive themselves! Yuk!!!

 

[Raymond Lin]

....So this leads me to ask the question whether if dealing with all that data might slow down AF tracking, which in the case of shooting fast moving wildlife would be a bad thing.

I would hope that any eye-detection feature would have the option to disable it. Just the same as if I'm driving a car with an auto-stop-start feature I always switch it off because I prefer to be more in control. Please don't get me started on technology in cars which allow them to drive themselves! Yuk!!!

You can turn off face detect and you need to physically press a button to activate eye af.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

....Yes I do love the ergonomics and interface of Canon EOS cameras and I have Canon L lenses which I value.

At my age (71) I have at last realised that I am not immortal afterall and am not very inclined to wait. Ideally I need to get an EOS R physically in my hands to make a final decision.



....Thank you for such high praise! I always try my best and have been out taking more today and met another Canon wildlife photographer who turns out to be a good friend of a good friend. He was shooting with a 600mm F/4L II on a 1DX-2 and we were both shooting a Lesser Yellowlegs (a rare wader bird blown in to the UK by recent storms) at great distance. We got talking about Canon's EOS R and he is going to wait for a higher spec version but pointed out that without a mechanical shutter there would be less camera movement potentially affecting long distance shots adversely.

I think some of his wildlife shots are fantastic! : https://www.flickr.com/photos/93711578@N00/with/43307030750/

Wow - they are also stunning! I think the simple answer looking at the photographs the pair of you take is neither NEED to upgrade/change but if you fancy a new camera then 'what the hell!'

I could only dream of shots like the two of you are producing - awesome

 

[Phil V]

Yet a high percentage of street photographers where the immediacy of being able to grab 'the decisive moment' state manual focus is far superior to any autofocus sytem

I’ll say disingenuous rather than just bolllox.
Zone focussing works perfectly fine for street photography. It’s not ‘superior’ as in more accurate, but superior in easy to use without drawing attention to the photographer.
It’s simply not good enough for professional portraiture. You’d have sold zone focussed pictures of lots of subjects 40 years ago, but unless something is a unique news story in 2018, it has to be perfectly focussed.

You’re an engineer, you know that within ‘depth of field’ doesn’t equal in focus, the focus plane is just that, a plane, not a bloody zone. And if the nearest eye isn’t in focus, the shots in the bin. That’s the expected standard, I’ll once again politely ask you to stop commenting on subjects you know 9/10 of 4/5 of f*** all about

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I’ll say disingenuous rather than just bolllox.
Zone focussing works perfectly fine for street photography. It’s not ‘superior’ as in more accurate, but superior in easy to use without drawing attention to the photographer.
It’s simply not good enough for professional portraiture. You’d have sold zone focussed pictures of lots of subjects 40 years ago, but unless something is a unique news story in 2018, it has to be perfectly focussed.

You’re an engineer, you know that within ‘depth of field’ doesn’t equal in focus, the focus plane is just that, a plane, not a bloody zone. And if the nearest eye isn’t in focus, the shots in the bin. That’s the expected standard, I’ll once again politely ask you to stop commenting on subjects you know 9/10 of 4/5 of f*** all about

So the modern day street photographer who states the Mf camera is better knows nothing? (I did post a link FYI)

As a professional photographer if you can't focus on an eye then you need to go to Specsavers as you are obviously as blind as you are rude!

 

[jonneymendoza]

I’ll say disingenuous rather than just bolllox.
Zone focussing works perfectly fine for street photography. It’s not ‘superior’ as in more accurate, but superior in easy to use without drawing attention to the photographer.
It’s simply not good enough for professional portraiture. You’d have sold zone focussed pictures of lots of subjects 40 years ago, but unless something is a unique news story in 2018, it has to be perfectly focussed.

You’re an engineer, you know that within ‘depth of field’ doesn’t equal in focus, the focus plane is just that, a plane, not a bloody zone. And if the nearest eye isn’t in focus, the shots in the bin. That’s the expected standard, I’ll once again politely ask you to stop commenting on subjects you know 9/10 of 4/5 of f*** all about

Ha. Well said Phil. This bloke is getting lynched

 

[RedRobin]

Wow - they are also stunning! I think the simple answer looking at the photographs the pair of you take is neither NEED to upgrade/change but if you fancy a new camera then 'what the hell!'

I could only dream of shots like the two of you are producing - awesome

....Thanks again! True that I don't NEED to upgrade but neither am I seriously considering the EXTRA body (EOS R) just because I fancy it. I'm planning to specifically replace my small mirrorless M5 body (with EF adapter) which I use primarily on my EF 100mm Macro. If shooting dragonflies or other insects for example, I like to get my first shots on my 1DX-2 + EF 100-400mm and then if I am allowed to get closer I need to act very fast and not lose valuable time changing lenses and also risking pollen etc entering the open camera and that's where having a second body already on a different lens can make the difference in getting good results.

Think of it this way: I need a second body for what I do.

 

[jonneymendoza]

....Thanks again! True that I don't NEED to upgrade but neither am I seriously considering the EXTRA body (EOS R) just because I fancy it. I'm planning to specifically replace my small mirrorless M5 body (with EF adapter) which I use primarily on my EF 100mm Macro. If shooting dragonflies or other insects for example, I like to get my first shots on my 1DX-2 + EF 100-400mm and then if I am allowed to get closer I need to act very fast and not lose time changing lenses and also risking pollen etc entering the open camera and that's where having a second body already on a different lens can make the difference in getting good results.

Think of it this way: I need a second body for what I do.

Grab a 5d4

 

[Phil V]

So the modern day street photographer who states the Mf camera is better knows nothing? (I did post a link FYI)

As a professional photographer if you can't focus on an eye then you need to go to Specsavers as you are obviously as blind as you are rude!

For f***s sake.
Read what I posted.
I am only ever rude when I have to deal with people like you.

 

[RedRobin]

Grab a 5d4

....I used to have a 5D-4 and traded it in for my 1DX-2, so I know what a 5D-4 does and doesn't offer me personally.

As explained in my previous post #2149 which you quoted but don't seem to have read, the EOS R offers me personally (not everyone) a good way forward - Won't you get bored if I list why yet again? Smaller size, articulated screen, truly silent shooting, control ring, are just some of the reasons.

I'm not saying that the EOS R is a 'better' camera than the 5D-4 but only that the EOS R suits my use better than the 5D-4 as a second body carried in the field with lens already mounted.

 

[jonneymendoza]

....I used to have a 5D-4 and traded it in for my 1DX-2, so I know what a 5D-4 does and doesn't offer me personally.

As explained in my previous post #2149 which you quoted but don't seem to have read, the EOS R offers me personally (not everyone) a good way forward - Won't you get bored if I list why yet again? Smaller size, articulated screen, truly silent shooting, control ring, are just some of the reasons.

I'm not saying that the EOS R is a 'better' camera than the 5D-4 but only that the EOS R suits my use better than the 5D-4 as a second body carried in the field with lens already mounted.

It's not that smaller then a 5d4 tbh and hope you are aware of the limitations of shooting in silent mode

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Here is a link showing that Street photographers are split between MF and Autofocus:

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...s-or-autofocus-better-for-street-photography/

Im really not so sure why the attacks are personal - I keep posting links to show that the thoughts aren't those just of myself.

I’ll say disingenuous rather than just bolllox.

Phil - your post is so contradictory it is unbelievable! (Which is why I am struggling to understand it and maybe you need to read it yourself!)First you say my post about street photography is b****x?
...........but in the next line you state:

Zone focussing works perfectly fine for street photography. It’s not ‘superior’ as in more accurate, but superior in easy to use without drawing attention to the photographer.

and then you say this????

It’s simply not good enough for professional portraiture. You’d have sold zone focussed pictures of lots of subjects 40 years ago, but unless something is a unique news story in 2018, it has to be perfectly focussed.

Confused.com - is MF OK for street photography then? (Especially for the large proportion of users on here that aren't selling images?)

 

[Phil V]

So the modern day street photographer who states the Mf camera is better knows nothing? (I did post a link FYI)

As a professional photographer if you can't focus on an eye then you need to go to Specsavers as you are obviously as blind as you are rude!

To be fair I shouldn’t be surprised.
You constantly reply to posts without actually reading them.
I never said street photographers didn’t zone focus, I said zone focussing was good enough for street.*

‘As a professional racing driver, why can’t you just use manual controls to manage ignition timing and fuel air mix, like they did in the old days’?

Clearly modern drivers are rubbish making the most of technology instead of just doing it themselves.

There you go, when brought down to tech you understand you should see how daft you’re being.

* in the same way ordinary pump fuel is good enough for a Kia Sportage

Do get a grip and stop dragging threads into the ridiculous

 

[Phil V]

Here is a link showing that Street photographers are split between MF and Autofocus:

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...s-or-autofocus-better-for-street-photography/

Im really not so sure why the attacks are personal - I keep posting links to show that the thoughts aren't those just of myself.



Phil - your post is so contradictory it is unbelievable! First you say my post about street photography is b****x?
...........but in the next line you state:



and then you say this????



Confused.com - is MF OK for street photography then? (Especially for the large proportion of users on here that aren't selling images?)

Try actually reading it without the attitude, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

So, I said this:

Yet a high percentage of street photographers where the immediacy of being able to grab 'the decisive moment' state manual focus is far superior to any autofocus sytem. The very best of the best in this genre managed without it - they used different techniques 'to crack the nut'.

Then you replied with this:

I’ll say disingenuous rather than just bolllox.

So I assume that what I have said about street photography you consider is wrong?

...........but now you have said this:

To be fair I shouldn’t be surprised.
You constantly reply to posts without actually reading them.
I never said street photographers didn’t zone focus, I said zone focussing was good enough for street.*

You appear to agree with me yet you wonder why I am confused?

P.S. I consider a Caterham or Lotus which is basically a 'raw' driving experience as far better performance car than any modern car with lots of automation and driver aids - most race cars don't have automation)

Likewise are all Leica M10 owners just 'ridiculous' because they don't have AF?

I fully understand why @RedRobin needs AF for what he shoots.

 

[Phil V]

So I assume that what I have said about street photography you consider is wrong?

...........but now you have said this:


You appear to agree with me yet you wonder why I am confused?

You’ve confused yourself with your assumption.

Caterhams and Lotus’ have ECU’s.
And when was the last time you drove a car with an ignition advance arm?

I own a 60s sports car; it’s closer to Raw than any caterham, and it has automatic timing advance

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I own a 60s sports car; it’s closer to Raw than any caterham, and it has automatic timing advance

aaaahhhhhhhh ---------good reply (I'd imagine it's 'clockwork' ignition advance with weights in a dizzy though), and probably doesn't handle as well on a circuit as a Caterham

Don't get me wrong Phil, for someone like @Raymond Lin & yourself or other pro wedding togs I can see advantages in the system where a face can be programmed in (Bride/groom?) and the camera locks onto the eyes of these people.

Amateur photographers quite often don't concentrate on a particular genre yet they quote 'what a game changer Eye AF' is (most contributors on here are amateur) yet they wont show what their style of photography is to back up their statements. I at least try to provide links to 'back-up' what my own experiences are and my posts are quite often the experiences of others (yet this approach seems to really rattle some people, so much so they start posting that I'm getting lynched!).............for my photography and other amateurs I know Eye AF would not be a game changer and maybe shouldn't have the importance people place on it?

 

[Fraser Euan White]

....I used to have a 5D-4 and traded it in for my 1DX-2, so I know what a 5D-4 does and doesn't offer me personally.

As explained in my previous post #2149 which you quoted but don't seem to have read, the EOS R offers me personally (not everyone) a good way forward - Won't you get bored if I list why yet again? Smaller size, articulated screen, truly silent shooting, control ring, are just some of the reasons.

I'm not saying that the EOS R is a 'better' camera than the 5D-4 but only that the EOS R suits my use better than the 5D-4 as a second body carried in the field with lens already mounted.

Hi Robin,

would it be worth hiring an EOS R for a short period? I am sure you would love it but would be nice to try before you buy?