Canon FF mirrorless...

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

I managed a full day out with my EOS R on a bird of prey photography workshop yesterday. For what it's worth, here's one of the photographs that I took. Hopefully Flickr hasn't completely mullered it.

Tawny Owl by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

I'll share some thoughts on the camera coming from m4/3 this evening after work, but suffice to say I am extremely pleased with how it performed. If there is any loss of performance in using an EF lens via the adaptor, even an old one like the EF 70-200mm f4 L non IS, then I certainly couldn't detect it.

Cheers,

Simon.

beautiful capture

 

[RedRobin]

After a good six hours of photography with the EOS R over the weekend I thought I would share some initial thoughts on how I felt the camera performed, both good and bad. To put things in to perspective, I moved from a Canon 1D mk II and 7D 9+ years ago and have used Panasonic Lumix m4/3 cameras since. I moved from their flagship photography camera (the G9) to the EOS R.
...
I’ve had very little opportunity to use AI Servo AF, but so far my experience echos what Robin has found. The last thing we did on the workshop I attended at the weekend was some in flight shots of a Great Grey Owl. Now I am no BiF expert, and we were taking these in woodland with rapidly failing light, but the keeper rate was very, very low with the bird flying straight down the barrel of the lens. I didn’t have any opportunity to adjust any of the AI Servo settings, so that might well have helped things and nor was I using one of Canon’s most recent L lenses. I hope to test AI Servo more next weekend when I head up to Croft Circuit. I suspect it will do much better on bigger targets with more predictable movement. However, I also strongly suspect that the EOS R is in no way a dedicated sports or wildlife camera! From my experience, the G9 would not have handled the BiF shooting any better than the EOS R.

.... Very nice report / overview. I'm glad it's not just me who finds the EOS R has shortcomings regarding capturing BiF and similar subjects.

I assume you shot with EF lenses. The Control Ring Adapter when it's released will open up even more customisation - The retailers don't have an ETA yet.

 

[TheBigYin]

No idea what I've done to the font / font size above LOL.

I fixed it - for future, select all the text then click on the button on the right hand side of the edit box marked Tx which will remove whatever screwed up formatting you've inadvertently applied.

 

[niko]

After a good six hours of photography with the EOS R over the weekend I thought I would share some initial thoughts on how I felt the camera performed, both good and bad. To put things in to perspective, I moved from a Canon 1D mk II and 7D 9+ years ago and have used Panasonic Lumix m4/3 cameras since. I moved from their flagship photography camera (the G9) to the EOS R.

The G9 is known for the quality of its EVF, and I don’t find the one the EOS R has to be any sort of step back whatsoever. To all intents and purposes, it feels like looking through an OVF in almost all circumstances, with the added benefit of way more shooting information and of course being able to see exactly what your exposure is going to be. I should qualify this by saying that I have used EVFs for the last 9 years and am a big fan of them. I didn’t experience any tearing or lag when using it, including when trying to follow fast moving birds with it in less than stellar light. The viewfinder is large and with good eye relief. I’m a spectacles wearer, and had no problems wearing my glasses while using the camera. Maybe I just haven’t worked out how to turn it on, but on my G9 there was an over exposure warning that highlighted blown areas live through the EVF while composing even when taking stills. At the moment, it appears that’s only available on the EOS R during playback. I found this extremely useful, and if it’s not there already, would love to see it added with a future firmware update. All in all though, I’ve found the EVF experience to be extremely good.

Coming from the G9 and its contrast based focusing system, the EOS feels different in use and I am still adjusting to it. While not slow, the EOS R does not feel as instantaneous in AF as the G9 did. I’m sure I’m splitting hairs here, but I did perceive a difference. However, I have so far found it to be very accurate in single shot AF and AI Servo for slow moving subjects (AI Servo performed very well as perched birds moved and twitched on the workshop I attended on Sunday). So far, I’ve tended to shoot using either a single AF point, or single AF point with 9 additional points around it. I have done some shots with face / eye detect AF, but so far found it inconsistent, and not as good as the G9. When it nails it, it really does nail it. However, it can miss and spectacle wears do seem to cause it some issues. Having said all of that, I am still adjusting to the different system and I am sure I will learn all of the EOS R’s AF foibles in time. I should also add that I’ve been caught out by lack of DoF on several occasions so far, which is probably not surprising saying I came from m4/3.

I’ve had very little opportunity to use AI Servo AF, but so far my experience echos what Robin has found. The last thing we did on the workshop I attended at the weekend was some in flight shots of a Great Grey Owl. Now I am no BiF expert, and we were taking these in woodland with rapidly failing light, but the keeper rate was very, very low with the bird flying straight down the barrel of the lens. I didn’t have any opportunity to adjust any of the AI Servo settings, so that might well have helped things and nor was I using one of Canon’s most recent L lenses. I hope to test AI Servo more next weekend when I head up to Croft Circuit. I suspect it will do much better on bigger targets with more predictable movement. However, I also strongly suspect that the EOS R is in no way a dedicated sports or wildlife camera! From my experience, the G9 would not have handled the BiF shooting any better than the EOS R.

I started off using the D pad to move my focus point around, but very quickly moved to using my thumb in the top right corner of the LCD screen. The rest of the LCD doesn’t respond to any touch when setup like this, so my nose resting against it didn’t have any affect or impact on performance. I found this to be a quick (so long as you weren’t going from one side of the frame to the other when two swipes of the thumb were usually needed) and accurate way to do things. I just had to remember to lift my thumb completely off the screen before moving it, otherwise it took the focus point with it. My G9 had this functionality, but it also had a joystick so I never made use of it although I kinda wish I had now. I’m sure with practice, I could be just about as quick as I would be with a joystick. I don’t have particularly large (or small) hands and found using the LCD to position the focus point with the camera to my eye and finger on the shutter button very comfortable indeed.

On that point, I found the whole ergonomics of the camera to be fantastic. Ergonomics are a very personal thing, but I found the EOS R to be excellent in this regard and extremely comfortable to use for extended periods of time handheld. With the way I had customised it, I never once had to go into the menus to make any adjustment while shooting. I just need to develop the muscle memory for where all the buttons are LOL.

The main reason I moved from the G9 to full frame was for increased image quality, and I am certainly not disappointed. I spent most of Saturday shooting between ISO1600 and ISO6400, and the images are far, far better then I ever would’ve got from my G9 at the same ISO. I will need to get some faster memory cards though, as those big raw files took some writing to what I have now.

So, there you go – my initial thoughts after a full day’s shooting with the EOS R. So far, I am extremely happy I made the change from the G9, as it is delivering exactly what I wanted. Apologies for the long post, but hopefully somebody will find it useful.

Cheers,

Simon.

that's a great write up, thank you for taking this time to do it. that battery life is fantastic as well. mind you your not making not owning one any easier!

 

[srhmoto]

I fixed it - for future, select all the text then click on the button on the right hand side of the edit box marked Tx which will remove whatever screwed up formatting you've inadvertently applied.

Thanks Mark

 

[RedRobin]

that's a great write up, thank you for taking this time to do it. that battery life is fantastic as well. mind you your not making not owning one any easier!

.... I'm probably stating the obvious but when you first own an EOS R battery life will be worse due to you continually exploring the Menus, settings and extensive customisation options, and chimping. Being mirrorless, battery juice consumption is heavier than a D-SLR but it will settle down as you have less need to explore and test, and then as Simon says it's surprisingly good. Canon using their existing LP-E6N battery is a good choice just as full compatibility with existing (and future) EF and EF-S lenses is.

Nik, you know you want one - Resistance is futile, especially when you handle that grip!

But the only question is whether to hang on for a very strongly rumoured announcement in January about the next version. As always, it depends what subjects you shoot and consequently your specification needs.

 

[niko]

.... I'm probably stating the obvious but when you first own an EOS R battery life will be worse due to you continually exploring the Menus, settings and extensive customisation options, and chimping. Being mirrorless, battery juice consumption is heavier than a D-SLR but it will settle down as you have less need to explore and test, and then as Simon says it's surprisingly good. Canon using their existing LP-E6N battery is a good choice just as full compatibility with existing (and future) EF and EF-S lenses is.

Nik, you know you want one - Resistance is futile, especially when you handle that grip!

But the only question is whether to hang on for a very strongly rumoured announcement in January about the next version. As always, it depends what subjects you shoot and consequently your specification needs.

well as much as I would like to, I don't have the need (6d is fine for my use) or money to do so. tbh the spec as is, is fine for me but will be interesting to see what comes next! I look forward to reading more and seeing pics from you guys already owning them

 

[srhmoto]

beautiful capture

that's a great write up, thank you for taking this time to do it. that battery life is fantastic as well. mind you your not making not owning one any easier!

Thanks guys

Simon.

 

[woof woof]

The main reason I moved from the G9 to full frame was for increased image quality, and I am certainly not disappointed. I spent most of Saturday shooting between ISO1600 and ISO6400, and the images are far, far better then I ever would’ve got from my G9 at the same ISO.

It's just as well you posted this here as there are threads on this forum in which you'd be berated for being a FF snob and fan boy for saying anything like that

I don't know how good R files are but I am sure they'll be better than MFT files but for whole images I'm still quite happy with MFT even at higher ISO's for the pictures I take. The thing is though, I can't stop myself from pixel peeping and that's when FF files still look lovely.

And to go down the adequate quality route for just another minute. I recently printed a smartphone picture to fill an A4 and even though the dpi dropped the printed framed picture still looks lovely, I thought so and so did the person I printed it for.

 

[Cagey75]

It's just as well you posted this here as there are threads on this forum in which you'd be berated for being a FF snob and fan boy for saying anything like that

I don't know how good R files are but I am sure they'll be better than MFT files but for whole images I'm still quite happy with MFT even at higher ISO's for the pictures I take. The thing is though, I can't stop myself from pixel peeping and that's when FF files still look lovely.

And to go down the adequate quality route for just another minute. I recently printed a smartphone picture to fill an A4 and even though the dpi dropped the printed framed picture still looks lovely, I thought so and so did the person I printed it for.

Of course a FF mirrorless is going to be better IQ! I don't imagine anyone in their right mind would argue that one. But how much better? I wonder how much of it is Placebo? outside of pixel peeping you're not going to notice much difference unless they are very low light images. Good to hear findings from someone non-bias who has actually used both systems though. I know that Simon was very happy with his M43 results, but no doubt met with limitations in DR and low lighting for his type of shooting.

As for your first line, it's the other way around, M43 or APSC users are perfectly happy until the FF crew try tell them it's not good enough

 

[woof woof]

Of course a FF mirrorless is going to be better IQ! I don't imagine anyone in their right mind would argue that one. But how much better? I wonder how much of it is Placebo? outside of pixel peeping you're not going to notice much difference unless they are very low light images. Good to hear findings from someone non-bias who has actually used both systems though. I know that Simon was very happy with his M43 results, but no doubt met with limitations in DR and low lighting for his type of shooting.

As for your first line, it's the other way around, M43 or APSC users are perfectly happy until the FF crew try tell them it's not good enough

The proof is in the final image Keith but it's the same with many things, cars, watches, shoes, suits, you name it. People often like luxury and that extra % even if in reality it can be a little difficult to justify. I think there is a bit of inverse snobbery about too, there definitely is for me and it's maybe understandable as a tradeoff in image quality in some situations is often worthwhile for other considerations such as bulk, weight and cost savings and speed of operation.

I've said many times that I use any ISO up to and including the max of all of my cameras and MFT shots at these very high ISO's are more often than not useable for me for people and scenic shots after only minimal processing but for stuff like feather detail when viewed closely larger formats are going to pull ahead at higher ISO's.

And thinking about adequate quality for a moment longer. The worst dedicated camera I've ever had was a keychain camera years ago and it was rubbish. The next worst is my Medion compact which is way behind a modern smartphone but can still give good whole pictures. A while ago I came across a landscape picture I'd cropped and printed to fill a whole A4 and then forgotten about and I was surprised at the quality, it looked lovely as a whole picture viewed normally or even closely.

Anyway. That's enough from me about adequate and indulgent luxury quality for today.

 

[Cagey75]

The proof is in the final image Keith but it's the same with many things, cars, watches, shoes, suits, you name it. People often like luxury and that extra % even if in reality it can be a little difficult to justify. I think there is a bit of inverse snobbery about too, there definitely is for me and it's maybe understandable as a tradeoff in image quality in some situations is often worthwhile for other considerations such as bulk, weight and cost savings and speed of operation.

I've said many times that I use any ISO up to and including the max of all of my cameras and MFT shots at these very high ISO's are more often than not useable for me for people and scenic shots after only minimal processing but for stuff like feather detail when viewed closely larger formats are going to pull ahead at higher ISO's.

And thinking about adequate quality for a moment longer. The worst dedicated camera I've ever had was a keychain camera years ago and it was rubbish. The next worst is my Medion compact which is way behind a modern smartphone but can still give good whole pictures. A while ago I came across a landscape picture I'd cropped and printed to fill a whole A4 and then forgotten about and I was surprised at the quality, it looked lovely as a whole picture viewed normally or even closely.

Anyway. That's enough from me about adequate and indulgent luxury quality for today.

High ISO performance is, for me at least, the only real weak factor when it comes to M43. I know some users aren't shy about going high, but like you, I'm a bit of a peeper too. I do find the grain is easier to work with than some APSC higher ISO images, but it tends to creep in sooner. What I find on the other hand is that I don't need to sharpen anywhere near as much as I used to, even with FF. That might be more down to my creative maturity rather than the sensor used.

I can't afford the R either way, still interested though, and seeing that the prices are already down from original release on the likes of HDEW [£1989 with EF adapter!], it is a possibility in future. Never say never and all that - I'm open format, I'll use just about anything that gets nice results. Whenever I think a camera is lacking in any way I just think back to when I used nothing but crappy little finger-nail sized sensor compacts and could still be happy with end results.

 

[srhmoto]

It's just as well you posted this here as there are threads on this forum in which you'd be berated for being a FF snob and fan boy for saying anything like that

I don't know how good R files are but I am sure they'll be better than MFT files but for whole images I'm still quite happy with MFT even at higher ISO's for the pictures I take. The thing is though, I can't stop myself from pixel peeping and that's when FF files still look lovely.

And to go down the adequate quality route for just another minute. I recently printed a smartphone picture to fill an A4 and even though the dpi dropped the printed framed picture still looks lovely, I thought so and so did the person I printed it for.

Of course a FF mirrorless is going to be better IQ! I don't imagine anyone in their right mind would argue that one. But how much better? I wonder how much of it is Placebo? outside of pixel peeping you're not going to notice much difference unless they are very low light images. Good to hear findings from someone non-bias who has actually used both systems though. I know that Simon was very happy with his M43 results, but no doubt met with limitations in DR and low lighting for his type of shooting.

As for your first line, it's the other way around, M43 or APSC users are perfectly happy until the FF crew try tell them it's not good enough

On reflection, where m4/3 would have given some advantage on Sunday versus the EOS R would've been to shoot at a wider aperture for the same effective DoF. This might have given me the opportunity to shoot at say 0.5 to 1 stop lower ISO, and I should've perhaps made that point above.

I am very happy with what I achieved with m4/3, but I did feel like I was up against a number of limitations with what I was trying to achieve with my photography. Few if any of those limitations had anything to do with pixel peeping which just isn't my thing. However, there is absolutely no doubt that I am seeing more detail and less colour issues from the EOS R when compared to a G9 photograph that's been photographed in similar light and camera settings (although I have not, am not able to and have no interest in doing any sort of back to back comparison). In that regard, there certainly isn't a placebo. However, let's also be honest here - I've just spent a big amount of money on a brand new camera and I'm still in the honeymoon period with it. Try as I might to be totally objective in my thoughts, I'm not going to be so 100% and there will be an element of 'rose tinted glasses', no matter how small that is. That's just human nature.

Cheers,

Simon.

 

[Cagey75]

On reflection, where m4/3 would have given some advantage on Sunday versus the EOS R would've been to shoot at a wider aperture for the same effective DoF. This might have given me the opportunity to shoot at say 0.5 to 1 stop lower ISO, and I should've perhaps made that point above.

I am very happy with what I achieved with m4/3, but I did feel like I was up against a number of limitations with what I was trying to achieve with my photography. Few if any of those limitations had anything to do with pixel peeping which just isn't my thing. However, there is absolutely no doubt that I am seeing more detail and less colour issues from the EOS R when compared to a G9 photograph that's been photographed in similar light and camera settings (although I have not, am not able to and have no interest in doing any sort of back to back comparison). In that regard, there certainly isn't a placebo. However, let's also be honest here - I've just spent a big amount of money on a brand new camera and I'm still in the honeymoon period with it. Try as I might to be totally objective in my thoughts, I'm not going to be so 100% and there will be an element of 'rose tinted glasses', no matter how small that is. That's just human nature.

Cheers,

Simon.

You made the right choice I would say, especially for sport and landscape. I didn't mean to imply that you were seeing anything that wasn't blatantly there of course IQ is better, and damn right it should be or I'd seriously question Canon on this move to FFML. Side by side comparisons are boring, why would you need to if you're happy? That is the main thing in the end.

 

[woof woof]

Again on quality, there was a post in another thread recently linking to a graph of the ISO / DR performance of several FF cameras. Here it is...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dyn...-r-and-nikon-z-cameras-fall-behind-the-sonys/

Now, better is better and all other things being equal being better is always welcome but for some people maybe the differences are so small now that they wont matter. Maybe image quality within the different formats is rapidly coming to be something we should worry less about and maybe we should give other things more weight.

 

[Cagey75]

The differences become all the lesser when you're post-processing anyway, I swear most damage is done during that phase. An over-cooked FF image can end up looking worse than a cheap phone cam image

 

[the black fox]

For the moment I am happy with the results I get from my MFT gear , this will be my first winter with the system so that’s when any downsides will show , I loved my canon gear when I owned it but like any system it’s only as good as how much money you have to put into it .
So far I have not had any noise problems with my new gear probably down to a set p.p regime the same with DR which I find fine but that’s compared to previous canon gear in my price range .
So far I see nothing in the new canon or Nikon ff mirrorless that makes me want to switch back . But kudos to robin and Simon for keeping us up to date with the pros and cons of the R system I’m certain it will grow into the new thing to have . ... but I will be watching with interest what the alliance of Panasonic/sigma/Leica bring to the table next year .

 

[Swiss Toni]

Again on quality, there was a post in another thread recently linking to a graph of the ISO / DR performance of several FF cameras. Here it is...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dyn...-r-and-nikon-z-cameras-fall-behind-the-sonys/

You just can't stop yourself can you.....

 

[woof woof]

So far I see nothing in the new canon or Nikon ff mirrorless that makes me want to switch back.

This is the issue for me.

I bought into the Sony FF mirrorless system early and in fact I ordered one before they hit the shops and I now have six native lenses and three expensive adapters (not £10 evil bay ones) so switching would only make sense to me if there was a significant advantage plus the A7III is quite a bit cheaper than the Canon and Nikon alternatives and arguably has a lead in some areas. For anyone just looking at mirrorless now though there's three choices.

 

[Gaz J]

The proof is in the final image Keith but it's the same with many things, cars, watches, shoes, suits, you name it. People often like luxury and that extra % even if in reality it can be a little difficult to justify. I think there is a bit of inverse snobbery about too, there definitely is for me and it's maybe understandable as a tradeoff in image quality in some situations is often worthwhile for other considerations such as bulk, weight and cost savings and speed of operation.

I've said many times that I use any ISO up to and including the max of all of my cameras and MFT shots at these very high ISO's are more often than not useable for me for people and scenic shots after only minimal processing but for stuff like feather detail when viewed closely larger formats are going to pull ahead at higher ISO's.

And thinking about adequate quality for a moment longer. The worst dedicated camera I've ever had was a keychain camera years ago and it was rubbish. The next worst is my Medion compact which is way behind a modern smartphone but can still give good whole pictures. A while ago I came across a landscape picture I'd cropped and printed to fill a whole A4 and then forgotten about and I was surprised at the quality, it looked lovely as a whole picture viewed normally or even closely.

Anyway. That's enough from me about adequate and indulgent luxury quality for today.

Another factor is if you aspire to own the best cameras that e.g Nikon/Canon make then they are FF cameras, 5D4, 1DX2, D850, D5. I know that cameras like the D500 and, to a lesser extent the 7DMkII are excellent cameras but they don’t have that final extra bit that some photographers are looking for. However you pay dearly for the privilege.

 

[woof woof]

You just can't stop yourself can you.....

Toni, my post wasn't like one of your many one line unfunny snipes and was in no way knocking any brand. It was to illustrate what could arguably be seen as relatively small differences in performance that may not matter and to say that we could maybe think about other things instead of worrying about finite performance in graphs. Reread it and you may see that.

 

[woof woof]

Another factor is if you aspire to own the best cameras that e.g Nikon/Canon make then they are FF cameras, 5D4, 1DX2, D850, D5. I know that cameras like the D500 and, to a lesser extent the 7DMkII are excellent cameras but they don’t have that final extra bit that some photographers are looking for. However you pay dearly for the privilege.

Yup and as I said, people like quality and that last % point and there's nothing wrong with that as long as we know that's what we're doing.

I'm trying to dial all that back a bit.

 

[Fordsabroad]

It didn't take long -- Wex have a S/H R for £2199 (open box)!!

One question for R users. If you already own canon lenses in the 24 - 105 range is the new R kit lens worth owning and can it be used on other canon FF bodies?

 

[woof woof]

It didn't take long -- Wex have a S/H R for £2199 (open box)!!

One question for R users. If you already own canon lenses in the 24 - 105 range is the new R kit lens worth owning and can it be used on other canon FF bodies?

I can answer the latter bit...

Mirrorless cameras have a shorter registration distance than DSLR's so if you want to use a mirrorless lens on a DSLR you'd need an adapter with a corrective lens in it to achieve infinity focus. So I doubt it'll be possible as there wont be any adapters like that on the market yet.

Using DSLR lenses on mirrorless is easier as in its simplest form (as just a mechanical device with no AF or electronic communication) the adapter is just a spacer to restore the registration distance.

 

[srhmoto]

For what it’s worth, all my comments are based on real world shooting that I’ve done. I have very little interest in graphs and lab tests. That’s just me and my personal opinion / preference though.

 

[the black fox]

For what it’s worth, all my comments are based on real world shooting that I’ve done. I have very little interest in graphs and lab tests. That’s just me and my personal opinion / preference though.

so far Simon just the one pic on here and flickr ( which btw is impressive) call me a luddite but I cant really see that the results justify the change . for landscape and low light photography yes there should be improvement but for wildlife and birds in the wild im not so sure .

 

[srhmoto]

so far Simon just the one pic on here and flickr ( which btw is impressive) call me a luddite but I cant really see that the results justify the change . for landscape and low light photography yes there should be improvement but for wildlife and birds in the wild im not so sure .

Well, as long as your sure.......Jeff, you're a luddite



Just as well I don't feel the need to justify the change to anyone then . I've only had the camera for a week and a bit, and in that time only used it for a handful of hours to shoot some pictures at a bird of prey workshop my wife and son had purchased for me as a birthday present. I've been at work and doing other family stuff in between times. I'm sure I'll post some more pictures from the weekend and as I get out more with it, but as and when I do it will be because I want to share the photo rather than justify a purchase or system change to anyone.

Simon.

 

[celnav]

Has anyone used the R with a third party lens? In particular I'm keen to know how it performs with the sigma/tamron 150-600. I had a quick play with a demo one in store recently and love the way the body felt in hand, but they didn't have an adaptor free to try out other lenses and that's the big sticking point for me right now.

 

[the black fox]

Well, as long as your sure.......Jeff, you're a luddite



Just as well I don't feel the need to justify the change to anyone then . I've only had the camera for a week and a bit, and in that time only used it for a handful of hours to shoot some pictures at a bird of prey workshop my wife and son had purchased for me as a birthday present. I've been at work and doing other family stuff in between times. I'm sure I'll post some more pictures from the weekend and as I get out more with it, but as and when I do it will be because I want to share the photo rather than justify a purchase or system change to anyone.

Simon.

Now now Simon I wasn’t being nasty or just voicing my feelings . . No one has to justify there purchases to any one . . Looking forward to seeing more shots and reading proper truthfull reviews from proper unbiased users such as yourself . Well done so far

 

[srhmoto]

Now now Simon I wasn’t being nasty or just voicing my feelings . . No one has to justify there purchases to any one . . Looking forward to seeing more shots and reading proper truthfull reviews from proper unbiased users such as yourself . Well done so far

No offense taken Jeff

 

[Swiss Toni]

Toni, my post wasn't like one of your many one line unfunny snipes and was in no way knocking any brand. It was to illustrate what could arguably be seen as relatively small differences in performance that may not matter and to say that we could maybe think about other things instead of worrying about finite performance in graphs. Reread it and you may see that.

When will you get it through your head that this is a thread about the CANON mirrorless camera and not a sony comparison thread.

One sony fanboy has already been barred from this thread for doing the same as you, ie offering nothing constructive re. the new camera.

It's time you were also barred too.

 

[the black fox]

When will you get it through your head that this is a thread about the CANON mirrorless camera and not a sony comparison thread.

One sony fanboy has already been barred from this thread for doing the same as you, ie offering nothing constructive re. the new camera.

It's time you were also barred too.

Considering nothing really constructive or different is being posted I can’t see any reason for that . No doubt when more buyers that are forum members start to write things up it will get more interesting till then we are all free to comment . Or do you just want spurious posts about how great the new camera is

 

[Brazo]

When will you get it through your head that this is a thread about the CANON mirrorless camera and not a sony comparison thread.

One sony fanboy has already been barred from this thread for doing the same as you, ie offering nothing constructive re. the new camera.

It's time you were also barred too.

Yes it’s a Canon thread but more fool you if you think any camera can be seen in a vacuum. Of course it’s going to draw comparisons. If you just want lots of praise heaped on canon cameras stick to their marketing guff.

 

[Phil V]

Yes it’s a Canon thread but more fool you if you think any camera can be seen in a vacuum. Of course it’s going to draw comparisons. If you just want lots of praise heaped on canon cameras stick to their marketing guff.

Or if we want insubstantiated lies about their lens compatibility we know where to come

 

[Phil V]

Considering nothing really constructive or different is being posted I can’t see any reason for that . No doubt when more buyers that are forum members start to write things up it will get more interesting till then we are all free to comment . Or do you just want spurious posts about how great the new camera is

I’d like serious discussion about the camera with a balanced amount of comparison.
Balanced doesn’t describe the member who posted nonsense then started hurling abuse when he was challenged.
Nor does it describe the ‘member’ who made 200 posts, about 4 of which were factual.
Nor does it describe the ‘member’ who constantly repeats that EF lenses won’t work properly on mirrorless bodies. Despite the fact it’s never been mentioned on a review, and several people have told him they have no issues. His reaction to being told he’s wrong? Stamps his feet and says he won’t be stopped.

So... it’s not about only having positive posts, but balance requires people not behaving like dicks.

 

[chrism_scotland]

Again on quality, there was a post in another thread recently linking to a graph of the ISO / DR performance of several FF cameras. Here it is...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/dyn...-r-and-nikon-z-cameras-fall-behind-the-sonys/

Now, better is better and all other things being equal being better is always welcome but for some people maybe the differences are so small now that they wont matter. Maybe image quality within the different formats is rapidly coming to be something we should worry less about and maybe we should give other things more weight.

I tend to believe that the differences at the top end are now so minimal IQ wise that it doesn't matter, fair enough it looks like there remains a bigger gap between Canon and Nikon/Sony from a sensor perspective (like we see with the DSLR's too) - I doubt anyone would be able to tell much of a difference between a Z7 or A7r3 shot (and thats speaking as someone who's used the D850 and A7R3) its a wash.

It didn't take long -- Wex have a S/H R for £2199 (open box)!!

One question for R users. If you already own canon lenses in the 24 - 105 range is the new R kit lens worth owning and can it be used on other canon FF bodies?

The reviews of the RF Mount 24-105 suggest its a step beyond the newer 24-105 II lens for EF mount.

 

[jj_glos]

I tend to believe that the differences at the top end are now so minimal IQ wise that it doesn't matter, fair enough it looks like there remains a bigger gap between Canon and Nikon/Sony from a sensor perspective (like we see with the DSLR's too) - I doubt anyone would be able to tell much of a difference between a Z7 or A7r3 shot (and thats speaking as someone who's used the D850 and A7R3) its a wash.



The reviews of the RF Mount 24-105 suggest its a step beyond the newer 24-105 II lens for EF mount.

For quite a while now digital camera tech has matured to a point where it's pretty difficult to buy a ''rubbish' camera. I just don't worry about it anymore. AF performance I do like, so entry level equipment isn't always going to make me particularly happy but even they are pretty capable nowadays.

The only tech item on the list which for me makes a massive difference, is the stacked sensor of the Sony A9. It's just awesomely brilliant to use. It's not everyones requirement though, and even though I love it I'm probably going to settle back with my Fuji kit... probably.

 

[Bevvo]

Is there any sense in one of the EOS R owners starting a ‘Canon EOS R Owners’ thread as there are for pretty much all of the other cameras? That way people can go to that thread if the wish to discuss the camera, or stay on this thread if they want to argue? It’s just that this thread might have some useful comments about the camera in, but finding them in the swamp of crap is difficult.

Whilst I could start the thread myself, I’m not an EOS R owner yet, so I feel it should really be done by one of the early-adopters.

 

[twist]

Is there any sense in one of the EOS R owners starting a ‘Canon EOS R Owners’ thread as there are for pretty much all of the other cameras? That way people can go to that thread if the wish to discuss the camera, or stay on this thread if they want to argue? It’s just that this thread might have some useful comments about the camera in, but finding them in the swamp of crap is difficult.

Whilst I could start the thread myself, I’m not an EOS R owner yet, so I feel it should really be done by one of the early-adopters.

No reason you can't start it, first post could perhaps include why you're going to buy it along with reviews you've read etc.

 

[woof woof]

When will you get it through your head that this is a thread about the CANON mirrorless camera and not a sony comparison thread.

One sony fanboy has already been barred from this thread for doing the same as you, ie offering nothing constructive re. the new camera.

It's time you were also barred too.

Toni, I started the thread as a long time Canon owner and I've said 100 times I'm not a fan boy, I couldn't give a flying about brands and nothing I've posted today is in any way knocking Canon or anyone else, far from it yet you continue with this sniping which seems to be mostly what you do in thread after thread after thread.

Why don't you just grow up?