I've only been following this thread for the past 3-4 pages but I've skimmed a bit of what came before. Here are some of my thoughts, in no particular order:
- The poll at the top of the thread is meaningless because the options are either "love it" or "hate it one of four different ways". There's a lot of grey area between "It's Amazing!" and "It's kind of a let down". Even "It's good for the price" is basically a qualified statement of disappointment.
- The 6D Mark II was criticized a lot when it was announced because it wasn't a $2000 5D Mark IV--and this was before its sensor limitations were known. Now the EOS R is being criticized for being no more than a mirrorless 5Div, even though its price is just a bit more than $2000. I'll chalk this up to "some people are never going to be happy." Seriously, 5Div capabilities for $2300! Personally, if I were in the market for 6Dii (or even a 5Div), I'd seriously consider the R. It seems like an overall better value, and the 5Div is a great starting point for the new line.
- It's clear from the 6Dii and the EOS R that Canon considers $2000 full frame bodies to be "prosumer" or "advanced amateur", not professional. Whether or not you agree, I think they were wise to position the R there. It shows that Canon is committed to a more discerning level of buyer, but it has wider appeal than if they had come right out of the chute with a $4000 "professional" body. As their first full-frame mirrorless offering, Canon needs this to gain positive market acceptance.
- Keep in mind that this is only the first release in what will no doubt be a family of cameras. Going back to the original EOS system release in 1987, the first body released was the 650, an amateur/enthusiast body, followed by a handful of 6xx, 7xx, and 8xx models. It wasn't until two years later that the professional "flagship" EOS-1 was released. Give it time.
- IMO, Canon was wise to make a new mount in order to take advantage of the shorter flange distance that mirrorless enables. They took a lot of flak in 1987 too because the EF mount wasn't natively compatible with FD lenses, but that proved to be a huge advantage for them in the long run. Nikon likes to boast that their AF bodies can accept every F-mount lens ever made, but there are so many qualifiers that it’s real confusing (IMO) trying to determine what features on what lenses are available for a given body.
- I think the adapters are a good solution at reasonable prices. I particularly like that Canon took advantage of the 24mm adapter distance to add features like the control ring and drop-in filters for existing EF lenses.
- I think they came out with a good initial selection of RF lenses. Pro favorites like the 70-200 will hopefully follow soon (imagine a 70-200 f/2 L!). An f/0.95 lens may be good for bragging rights, but that's a highly specialized lens and not something a lot of people will use every day. Again, give it time. Canon knows better than anyone which EF lenses are most popular, and they will have to bring those to the RF mount sooner rather than later for the R line to succeed.
- I agree that the lack of IBIS and the 1.7x crop factor for 4K video are disappointing in 2018. On the former, all I can think is that Canon makes tons of money on lens-based IS, and on the latter, I don't do much video so I don't know all of the issues and tradeoffs.
- I am disappointed that it doesn't do continuous AF at greater than 5 FPS. Given how important professional sports photographers have always been for the EOS system, they're going to have to improve upon this sooner rather than later IMO.
Overall, I have to give Canon a lot of credit for the choices they made on the EOS R. Time will tell if they were the right decisions or not, but at least they've come out with a credible entry into the prosumer mirrorless space. It's not perfect, and there's always room for improvement, but this is the first entry in the EOS R line, not the last. I think it will be more interesting to see where the line goes in the next couple of years.