Canon FF mirrorless...

Messages
2,137
Edit My Images
No
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?
Why do you think you're in a position to tell others what is or isn't important to them?

I've never even claimed to use eye AF let alone its importance to me, yet you've demanded I show photographic evidence and to know what cameras I use as if that has any relevance to what eye AF does.
 
Messages
3,037
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Why do you think you're in a position to tell others what is or isn't important to them?

I've never even claimed to use eye AF let alone its importance to me, yet you've demanded I show photographic evidence and to know what cameras I use as if that has any relevance to what eye AF does.
If you have read it llike that then you are mistaken!

I said :
.................and maybe shouldn't have the importance people place on it?
It is a speculative question to promote discussion/thought; the 'maybe' shows I am NOT telling anyone.

I haven't demanded you show photographic evidence at all! I asked Riz_Guru to post a link to a portfolio to show why he found eye AF such a 'biggie' (Post 2096). Strange - I wrongly assumed that on a photographic forum people would like to share images to help show their points.

Quite frankly I feel the whole Eye AF subject being 'such a game changer'; is another pathetic attempt by Sony owners to 'swing their cocks' in public and was very thinly veiled behind Canon maybe introducing this in a firmware update.

Anyway - I.m sure you will be glad to hear that the Sony Mafioso are being added to my ignore list so you won't have to put up with my replies.
 
Messages
23,038
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
aaaahhhhhhhh ---------good reply (y) (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 :)
Fraser, can you not see this.
You’re old, you’ve decided for yourself how far technology should be used by photographers (and drivers) based on where it fits for you.
I’ve just become a grandad; I may not need some modern technology, but I’m not arrogant enough to assume that people who welcome it are somehow flawed! That’s a ridiculous position and I’m sure in a cool moment you’d realise that.

Back to a previous response to you...
I don’t ‘need’ AF (no one needs it), but it’s better than me at focussing.

I’ve never even tried ‘eye af’* but if it works as well as some people say, it’s a great tool for people to use. And there’s never a good reason to dismiss technology. And snobbery is far from a reason to try to influence others.

*I’m still upset that Sony use a name previously used for an alternative technology.
 
Last edited:
Messages
737
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
If you have read it llike that then you are mistaken!

Anyway - I.m sure you will be glad to hear that the Sony Mafioso are being added to my ignore list so you won't have to put up with my replies.
Didn't realise that Sony are an Italian Company! Perhaps 'Yakuza' would be more relevant!

I'm sure they'll miss your advice and input Fraser. ;)
 
Messages
5,451
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
It's not that smaller then a 5d4 tbh and hope you are aware of the limitations of shooting in silent mode
....The EOS R + EF 100mm Macro will fit into one of my Lowepro bags whereas the 5D-4 + EF 100mm Macro will not. Check out the pics of size comparisons online.

Silent mode is an option which can be enabled/disabled at will. For me it's a very useful option to have for animals which spook easily.

Besides, why the heck are you so intent on trying to persuade me to buy a camera I have already owned!?
 
Messages
5,451
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
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?
....That's a very good idea! Duh Robin duh!

@StewartR will you be hiring any EOS R bodies, please?
 
Messages
3,037
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
Fraser, can you not see this.
You’re old, you’ve decided for yourself how far technology should be used by photographers (and drivers) based on where it fits for you.
I’ve just become a grandad; I may not need some modern technology, but I’m not arrogant enough to assume that people who welcome it are somehow flawed! That’s a ridiculous position and I’m sure in a cool moment you’d realise that.

Back to a previous response to you...
I don’t ‘need’ AF (no one needs it), but it’s better than me at focussing.

I’ve never even tried ‘eye af’* but if it works as well as some people say, it’s a great tool for people to use. And there’s never a good reason to dismiss technology. And snobbery is far from a reason to try to influence others.

*I’m still upset that Sony use a name previously used for an alternative technology.
Phil - I mostly agree with what you have said but I am certainly not anti technology; i actually really love my gadgets.

For the 35yrs I have enjoyed photography I have introduced it to several friends and as cameras get more features it has actually become harder to teach new people to the hobby in certain respects. Some modern features may be very useful but I am also old and wise enough to realise Camera manufacturers have to keep selling cameras and 'tech' is often put into a camera to do this and the marketing men then convince us it is a 'must have'.

I am sure Talk Photography is like any other forum on the internet; thousands of readers yet very few participants. We must accept that there will be thousands of readers that will read this EOS R thread that may well get the impression that if a said camera doesn't have X.Y.Z feature it is useless, where as the truth is probably quite the opposite.

In my posts I try to show what the thoughts of others (by providing links to articles wherever I possibly can) and my own views. These are to try to stimulate discussion/thought about some of these features knowing thousands of others are just passively reading and some may well be new to the hobby.............asking for people to provide links to show what genre of photography they engage in may help the people who do not wish to contribute.

Instead - I find people are just abusive towards my posts because I may take a different viewpoint but like I previously stated, I post links to show there are many others that feel the same and feature X,Y,Z is not the 'greatest thing ever'. The abuse also stops many people contributing to the discussions.
 
Messages
2,137
Edit My Images
No
It is a speculative question to promote discussion/thought; the 'maybe' shows I am NOT telling anyone.
As Phil said you're being disingenuous, I get from your writing that you seem to think you're being clever about this, you're not. If you want to group a bunch of people together and call them 'sony mafioso' then you don't really get to pretend you're doing so in the interest of promoting discussion/thought.

I haven't demanded you show photographic evidence at all! I asked Riz_Guru to post a link to a portfolio to show why he found eye AF such a 'biggie' (Post 2096). Strange - I wrongly assumed that on a photographic forum people would like to share images to help show their points.
You asked what cameras we're using, then ignored all else to throw in the little spec sheet quip, then ask why we're unwilling to show photos to back up an opinion that only one person expressed but that's rather the point isn't it? The intention was to diminish others, not actually promote discussion. You then try to wriggle out of it by claiming you never did so and again with the disingenuous oh but why wouldn't you want to show some photos to get your point across.

Quite frankly I feel the whole Eye AF subject being 'such a game changer'; is another pathetic attempt by Sony owners to 'swing their cocks' in public and was very thinly veiled behind Canon maybe introducing this in a firmware update.
Equally so I think most of your comments are driven by an irrational dislike for Sony, I see nothing wrong with someone saying eye AF is an important feature to them even if their job doesn't depend on it or they're the most casual user in the world, why exactly does this hurt you? The especially odd part of your argument is eye AF is found across several brands including the one this thread is focused on so why such a chip on your shoulder about what's effectively now a common feature? You brought up the firmware update, why turn that around as an excuse to complain about others?

This sounds much the same as when you couldn't tolerate people having the option of choosing between 0.1 or 0.3 stop adjustments, no one was losing out from the addition as both options were viable but you've already determined we should be using it how you think is correct or to appreciate the update is somehow falling for a marketing scam (despite the reality it probably wouldn't change anyone's budgeting).

Anyway - I.m sure you will be glad to hear that the Sony Mafioso are being added to my ignore list so you won't have to put up with my replies.
You haven't really been bothering to read my posts, I very much doubt I'll notice the difference.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,137
Edit My Images
No
..............so it's a personal grudge you have against me from that thread? Let me just remind you that it wasn't just me questioning your logic in that thread (You even said so yourself):
No nothing personal in it, it just illustrated your attitude across these threads, my point wasn't that you have to agree with my view but rather that in both cases you determined someone (or someone may) get caught up in marketing because the feature didn't matter to you regardless of how others think of it. I think it also tied directly into Phil's point earlier in this thread, although I can't say that with certainty.

Where as I had actually said this:
You've said several things, if you're going to quote you could at least choose the ones relevant to what we're talking about:

TBH Simon that sounds exactly like you have fallen for the marketing hype and is what the manufacturers want you to beleive - 'our latest studio flash can adjust in 0.1 increments accurately and you must have it'.
The point you don't seem to understand/accept is it was an update that gave me a feature I'm accustomed to using on my other equipment, even if it wasn't what I was used to you're making the same mistake in assuming what should or shouldn't be important to others. Why is it difficult for you to accept that I find the feature useful? Why must I have fallen for marketing spin (on something I already own)? Yeesh!

These were NOT my words but you chose to disagree with him (and most others) then went on to criticise his equipment by replying:
As was explained in the thread, he was quoting someone mistakenly. It's not difficult to see 0.1 adjustments when you're actually using that type of equipment.

This was fully explained in the thread and my comment was not a criticism of his equipment because almost any equipment you should be able to see those adjustments (put another way, if you can't see the difference your equipment may be faulty and should probably be replaced but with the important caveat that accurate 0.1 adjustments may not be that common). If he reasons that 0.1 adjustments are unimportant to him, that's entirely his choice and perfectly valid but that's different from the clearly incorrect notion there's no visible difference.

For the sake of the others here let's not fill up this thread with quotes from another thread, if you want to continue the discussion on the Godox firmware update let's do it in that thread.
 
Last edited:
Messages
180
Name
Conrad
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm one of the people who hasn't posted on this thread so far (and have only a small number of posts on TP in general), and at the moment, until I potentially try an EOS R, I doubt I'll post again on it.

I came to this thread as a long time Canon DSLR user, as I was interested in what people thought of the new mirrorless offering from Canon.
For reference, I currently use a 5Dmk3, and a first generation EOS-M, as well as a film EOS 30V (something that has the "old" implementation of "eye AF" - where it focuses on the AF point that the photographer's eye looks at), and will shortly be getting a Croma 5x4 large format film camera. So I have an interest in and embrace both older tech, and the newer digital regime.

I've gone back through quite a few pages, and buried in all the many posts, have managed to find maybe 5 or 6 useful/helpful ones - the link to the DP Review video being one of them.
From what I've managed to pick up, I think I'll probably wait for the next iteration of this camera, although I can see the EOS R being extremely useful - for me, simple features (common to mirrorless) would be silent shutter, and a good EVF - the idea when shooting in very dim light that you'd actually be able to see the scene much more clearly/brightly than through an optical viewfinder.

I'd be interested in the Canon offering as it's compatible with my existing EF lenses, and I have no wish to start changing these.


Now, more to the point that has caused me to post - as I said, I've probably found 5 or 6 useful posts in the last 10 pages or so of the thread.
The rest of the thread seems to be filled with petty, argumentative, space and time-wasting bickering.

I'm a long time member of a particular motoring forum, and have noticed over the last few years a steady decline in the quality of discussion with many threads descending into pointless arguments from a bunch of self-important "keyboard warriors".

I had thought that TP was a little more mature than this (the Macro and Film & Conventional areas seem to be), but I'm honestly more than a little shocked and ultimately disappointed that a thread supposedly where one could expect interesting, informed, and intelligent discussion about a new camera model from Canon instead seems to be a repository for a bunch of arguments about whether Sony is better than Canon, Canon is better than Sony, and what seem like a host of personal attacks on and from people holding views on both sides.


I wish people would grow up, and either contribute positively or simply keep quiet, and not bother posting.

Well, rant over, and I'll go back to observing threads unless I have something sensible to contribute.

Thanks.

:(
 
Messages
23,038
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Phil - I mostly agree with what you have said but I am certainly not anti technology; i actually really love my gadgets.
Again, you readsomething I didn’t post.

I never suggested you were anti technology.

I just pointed out that as a bloke of an age, you’d settled into what technology you were happy with, like the lady with the lovely 80’s hairdo, some of your views are pickled In aspic.

You enjoy your MF camera experience, rarely miss AF (for your type of photography) and can’t see why anyone else would want to make use of the increasingly sophisticated AF systems available. You’re blind to the idea you could possibly be wrong.

You mistakenly believe confirmation bias is the same thing as evidence gathering; slowly again...

zone focussing works perfectly for Street photography, hyperfocal works for landscape. But for those of us wishing to produce photographs with a shallow DoF that are critically focussed, modern AF gives us a keeper rate that MF can’t come close to. None of us ‘needs’ AF to focus a camera, but it does improve the experience for us (remember its about enjoying what we do).

Just like your ‘raw’ driving experience, in a sports car that might look like something from the 60’s but is actually full of technology that’s constantly incrementally improving. From a technology perspective a brand new MkII Escort rally car (readily available) is a completely different car to a 70’s original, to the point where it’s borderline a pastiche. Yet plenty of people take a glance and see it as just a newly built classic car, they’re wrong. Just like Leica owners believing that all that’s happened is their 50’s camera has simply been ‘digitalised’, they’re fooling themselves, 20 years of digital improvements have been incorporated into the latest model, again it’s a pastiche.

I’ve already said my bit about the constant spamming of this thread by some people who really shouldn’t be posting here (about 20 pages ago), so we agree about that, but let’s keep it sensible, at least some of them appear to have got the message. :)

Now can we get back to discussing the Canon EOS R?
(It’s not only the S*** fanboys who’ve derailed this thread)
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,250
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm one of the people who hasn't posted on this thread so far (and have only a small number of posts on TP in general), and at the moment, until I potentially try an EOS R, I doubt I'll post again on it.

I came to this thread as a long time Canon DSLR user, as I was interested in what people thought of the new mirrorless offering from Canon.
For reference, I currently use a 5Dmk3, and a first generation EOS-M, as well as a film EOS 30V (something that has the "old" implementation of "eye AF" - where it focuses on the AF point that the photographer's eye looks at), and will shortly be getting a Croma 5x4 large format film camera. So I have an interest in and embrace both older tech, and the newer digital regime.

I've gone back through quite a few pages, and buried in all the many posts, have managed to find maybe 5 or 6 useful/helpful ones - the link to the DP Review video being one of them.
From what I've managed to pick up, I think I'll probably wait for the next iteration of this camera, although I can see the EOS R being extremely useful - for me, simple features (common to mirrorless) would be silent shutter, and a good EVF - the idea when shooting in very dim light that you'd actually be able to see the scene much more clearly/brightly than through an optical viewfinder.

I'd be interested in the Canon offering as it's compatible with my existing EF lenses, and I have no wish to start changing these.


Now, more to the point that has caused me to post - as I said, I've probably found 5 or 6 useful posts in the last 10 pages or so of the thread.
The rest of the thread seems to be filled with petty, argumentative, space and time-wasting bickering.

I'm a long time member of a particular motoring forum, and have noticed over the last few years a steady decline in the quality of discussion with many threads descending into pointless arguments from a bunch of self-important "keyboard warriors".

I had thought that TP was a little more mature than this (the Macro and Film & Conventional areas seem to be), but I'm honestly more than a little shocked and ultimately disappointed that a thread supposedly where one could expect interesting, informed, and intelligent discussion about a new camera model from Canon instead seems to be a repository for a bunch of arguments about whether Sony is better than Canon, Canon is better than Sony, and what seem like a host of personal attacks on and from people holding views on both sides.


I wish people would grow up, and either contribute positively or simply keep quiet, and not bother posting.

Well, rant over, and I'll go back to observing threads unless I have something sensible to contribute.

Thanks.

:(
Might be better once people own the camera .
 
Messages
7,621
Edit My Images
No
....The EOS R + EF 100mm Macro will fit into one of my Lowepro bags whereas the 5D-4 + EF 100mm Macro will not. Check out the pics of size comparisons online.

Silent mode is an option which can be enabled/disabled at will. For me it's a very useful option to have for animals which spook easily.

Besides, why the heck are you so intent on trying to persuade me to buy a camera I have already owned!?
Na I'm not. Trying to understand your reasoning
 
Messages
5,451
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Now, more to the point that has caused me to post - as I said, I've probably found 5 or 6 useful posts in the last 10 pages or so of the thread.
The rest of the thread seems to be filled with petty, argumentative, space and time-wasting bickering.

I had thought that TP was a little more mature than this (the Macro and Film & Conventional areas seem to be), but I'm honestly more than a little shocked and ultimately disappointed that a thread supposedly where one could expect interesting, informed, and intelligent discussion about a new camera model from Canon instead seems to be a repository for a bunch of arguments about whether Sony is better than Canon, Canon is better than Sony, and what seem like a host of personal attacks on and from people holding views on both sides.

I wish people would grow up, and either contribute positively or simply keep quiet, and not bother posting.
.... Agreed!

@TheBigYin, unfortunately the bickering continues in spite of your warning. It's more than just friendly banter.

Might be better once people own the camera .
.... I think we are still looking at about a month from now before they hit the retailers.

Meanwhile, there is a drip feed of reports and info which is helpful to those here who are interested in the EOS R and its future developments.

:)
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,182
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I may be two days late but it's the first time I've come across it.

I quite like their reviews but I do skip the video bits.
 
Messages
6,352
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Wow - 8 posts without an argument!
:D lets see if we can continue.
The 28-70mm f2.0 looks like a corker of a lens..... proper L glass.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,632
Edit My Images
Yes
canon has always been good at making lenses. All EOS RF lenses look rather good. They have definitely done a better job for starting lenses than Nikon.
 
Messages
6,730
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
canon has always been good at making lenses. All EOS RF lenses look rather good. They have definitely done a better job for starting lenses than Nikon.
Always invest in glass is the old mantra.

I will get another Canon body, RF mount, when the bodies mature to have the tech I want, by that time the lenses line up would be rock solid then.
 
Messages
7,621
Edit My Images
No
Always invest in glass is the old mantra.

I will get another Canon body, RF mount, when the bodies mature to have the tech I want, by that time the lenses line up would be rock solid then.
I will only switch back if they release a body that's revolutionary, not do the same thing my current gear does. Otherwise its pointless right?
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,632
Edit My Images
Yes
Always invest in glass is the old mantra.

I will get another Canon body, RF mount, when the bodies mature to have the tech I want, by that time the lenses line up would be rock solid then.
nice old mantra that doesn't work out for me. Canon is sorted for me as far as glass is concerned especially since adapted glass work as well as native glass.
It is the body that cannot replace my current body.
 
Messages
5,451
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
That’s why a lot of people won’t be switching from Canon. There isn’t a body out there that is truly revolutionary that fills every role and everyone’s needs.
.... I think it's fair to say that the last revolutionary camera (apart from say Phase One or Hasselblad etc) was the first digital Canon EOS about 30 years ago. It was so different from the early digital Nikons in its physical interface. Its introduction caused me to sell my Nikon body and 4 Nikkor lenses and switch to Canon.
 
Messages
5,451
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
canon has always been good at making lenses. All EOS RF lenses look rather good. They have definitely done a better job for starting lenses than Nikon.
.... And the RF lenses without IS are clearly primarily intended for the higher spec EOS R bodies when they are released. This suggests that the higher-end bodies may have IBIS?

I know that many here don't like Tony Northrup but he is saying that the RF 24-105mm F/4L IS is as sharp as the RF 28-70mm F/2L which costs about three grand. < I hope I got that right.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,182
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I will only switch back if they release a body that's revolutionary, not do the same thing my current gear does. Otherwise its pointless right?
I can't rule out buying s Canon or Nikon again but the badge means nothing to me.

I bought my 300D, 20D and 5D because at the time they were the best at the price. I bought my first Panasonic and Sony mirrorless because there was little other choice. Sony are at the moment imo still the market leaders for anyone without a cupboard full of lenses to adapt so if I buy anything it'll be an A7III but in 5 years time there may be a credible Canikon and if there is it'll be on my shortlist but will not get bumped to the top just because of the badge or the fact that I've owned them before.
 
Top